
Book ^ 



CONTESTED ELECTION CASE 



OF 



JOHN J. CARNEY 



DICK T. MORGAN 



FROM THE 



Second Congressional District 
of Oklahoma 



I! 



WASHINGTON 
1913 



{J 



CONTESTED ELECTION CASE 



OF 



JOHN J. CARNEY 

V. 

DICK T. MORGAN 

FROM THE 



Second Congressional District 
of Oklahoma 









WASHINGTON 
1913 



i 






v9 







n. OF D, 
SEP 13 1913 






CONTESTED ELEOTIOI^ CASE 



OF 



JOHN J. CARNEY V. DICK T. MORGAN 

FROM THE 

SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA. 



NOTICE OF CONTEST. 

Your contestant, John J. Carney, for grounds of contest against the con- 
testee, Dick T. Morgan, alleges and states : 

First. That at the regular election held in the second congressional district of 
the State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, A. D. 1912, the said John 
J. Carney was the duly and regularly chosen and qualified nominee of the 
Democratic Party for the office of Congressman from the second congressioral 
district of the State of Oklahoma, and that his name appeared upon the official 
ballot in said election as the candidate of said party for said office ; that the 
said Dick T. Morgan was the regular nominee of the Republican Party for said 
office, and that his name appeared upon the official ballot in said election as the 
candidate of said Republican Party for such office, and that there was an elec- 
tion held for said office in the State of Oklahoma upon the 5th day of Novem- 
ber, A. D. 1912. 

Second. That upon the 22d day of November, A. D. 1912, the State election 
board of the said State of Oklahoma canvassed the official returns of the vaiious 
counties in said congressional district and pretended to tabulate the votes 
returned for contestant and contestee and, upon completion thereof, wrongfully 
found and determined that the contestant, John J. Carney, had received only 
23,671 votes for said office, and that the contestee. Dick T. Morgaj, had received 
24,334 votes for said office, and thereupon wrongfully announced that the said 
Dick T. Morgan was therefore duly and legally elected to said office, and 
thereupon, wrongfully, upon the said 22d day of November, A. D. 1912, issued 
and delivered to the said Dick T. Morgan, contestee, a certificate of such elec- 
tion. 

Third. That the official returns of the votes cast at said election for the 
said John J. Carney and said Dick T. Morgan, nominees as aforesaid, as made 
by the various precinct election boards in the counties of the said second 
congressional district to the said State election board, and as aforesaid returns 
canvassed by the said State election board were and are false, untrue, and incor- 
rect, and did not and do not show the true and correct number of legal votes 
cast for the said two nominees, John J. Carney and Dick T. Morgan, at said 
election for said office ; that in truth and in fact the. said John J. Carney, at 
said election, received 25,171 votes and the said Dick T. Morgan only 22,594 
votes; that 25,171 votes, so received by contestant as aforesaid, were and are a 
plurality of all votes cast for all the candidates for said office at said election, 
and this contestant, John J. Carney, therefore alleges that he was duly and 
legally elected and entitled to a certificate of election to the office of Congress- 
man from the second congressional district of the State of Oklahoma, and that 
the said contestee was not elected to said office, and that therefore your con- 
testant is duly entitled to represent the second congressional district of the 
State of Oklahoma in Congress for the period prescribed therefor by law. 

3 



4 CAEISTEY VS. MORGAN. 

Fonrtli. That at the time of said election, and for some time previous there- 
to, there had been in full force and effect in the State of Olilahoma a certain 
law, commonly known as the "grandfather clause," and which has been con- 
strued and upheld by the supreme court of the State of Olilahoma previous to 
said election, which said law provided, in substance and effect, that no person 
should register as an elector or be allowed to vote in any election held in the 
State of Oklahoma unless he were able to read and write anv section of the 
constitution of the State of Oklahoma, but likewise provided tha^t no person who 
was, on January 1, 1866, or at any time prior thereto, entitled to vote under any 
form of government, or who at that time resided in some foreign nation and 
no lineal descendant of such person should be denied the right to register and 
vote because of his inability to so read and write sections of said constitution ; 
and said law further made it the duty of the precinct election inspectors hav- 
ing in charge the registration of such electors to enforce the provisions of this, 
section at the time of registration provided registration be required, and that 
where registration was dispensed with that the provisions of said law should be 
enforced by the precinct election officers when electors should apply for their 
ballots to vote. A true and correct copy of said law is hereto attached, marked 
" Exhibit A," and expressly made a part hereof. 

Fifth. That in the cities of said congressional district registration was re- 
quired by law, and that the registration officers in the cities of said congressional 
district wrongfully permitted to register at said election 1,021 negroes, who 
voted for the contestee at said general election upon the 5th day of November, 
A. D. 1912; all of which facts, as set forth in this paragraph of this notice 
of contest, were at said time, and are now known to the said contestee, Dick T. 
Morgan, the said number of illegal voters, registered as in this paragraph con- 
tained, not having qualified under the said law of the said State of Oklahoma, 
and that by so voting, as aforesaid, the said votes changed the result of said 
election wrongfully in favor of the said contestee. 

Sixth. That at the time of said election, and for some time prior thereto, and 
at all the times mentioned in this paragraph of this notice of contest, one Homer 
T. Boardman was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting United States dis- 
trict attorney for the western district of the State of Oklahoma, and which 
comprised, then and there, the territory of the second congressional district of 
the State of Oklahoma ; that prior to said election, and with the consent, knowl- 
edge, and connivance of the said Dick T. Morgan, contestee, there was sent to 
every precinct election official in the second congressional district of the State 
of Oklahoma an opinion by the said Homer T. Boax'dman upon the said so-called 
grandfather clause set forth in the above paragraph, as to its Ineffectuality, and 
accompanying said opinion was a warning circular to the said precinct election 
officials, warning them that they might go to the penitentiary, and to talk It 
over with their wives, and calling their attention to the fact that two men had 
been convicted already for violating the said law, for the express purpose of 
intimidating the precinct election officials who conducted the said election for 
Congressman in the second congressional district, and to prevent them from 
conducting said election according to law. A true and correct copy of the 
said opinion of the said United States district attorney and a true copy of the 
said warning circular are hereto attached, marked " Exhibit B " and " Exhibit 
C," respectively, and expressly made a part hereof. That the said opinion and 
warning circular were duly received by each and every precinct election official 
in the second congressional district of the Slate of Oklahoma who presided in 
that capacity at the said general election, preventing the holding of a fair 
and legal election and causing the said officials to let vast numbers of illegal 
negro voters to vote at said election to such an extent in the several precincts 
of the said congressional district where negroes A^ote, as to absolutely render 
void the election held in the said negro precincts ; that with the said illegal negro 
votes cast in the said negro precincts, the names of the said precincts and the 
numbers of votes cast therein being well known to this contestee, it is impos- 
sible to determine what would have been the result in said precincts. 

Contestant further alleges that said threatening circular letter and opinion of 
the said United States district attorney intimidated the said precinct election 
officials of the said congressional district to that extent that they permitted 
vast number of disqualified voters to vote, rather than take the chance of Fed- 
eral prosecution, as threatened, and that by so doing they permitted enough 
disqualified and illegal voters to vote to give the said contestee a plurality upon 
the face of the returns, when in truth and in fact the contestant, the nearest 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 5 

competitor to said contestee in said congressional race, according to the wrong- 
fully announced vote, was entitled to the said certificate of election, lie having 
received of the legal votes cast a plurality over the said contestee, Dick T. 
Morgan, of 2,577 votes ; that the said contestee well knew that said threatening 
circular letter and opinion had been sent to every precinct election official in the 
second congressional district, and had been received by said election officials 
in due course of mail prior to said election, and connived at, encouraged, and 
otherwise aided and abetted the said Homer T. Boardman, and other Federal 
officials in the State of Oklahoma, in intimidating the said precinct election 
officials and in causing them tc fail to perform their official dutes as required 
by law, on account of which failure to perform their said duties as precinct 
electiou officials, fraud was perpetrated upon this contestant, and he was 
deprived of the certificate of election, and that if the said election be purged 
of said fraud your contestant would, as aforesaid, have a plurality over the 
contestee of the aforesaid number of 2,577 votes. 

Seventh. That Oklahoma County, Okla., is in the said congressional district; 
that in the several precincts where said fraud and intimidation and threats 
were used to the advantage of the said contestee, as set forth in the above 
paragraph, there were 1.20S votes cast for the said contestee and 508 for the 
said contestant, the following precincts being so affected in said county by 
said fraud and intimidation, and it being impossible to determine what the 
result would have been in each of said precincts without said illegal vote : 
Luther Township, Deep Fork Township, Lincoln Township, town of Luther, 
Choctaw Township, Crutcho Township, Dewey Township, Springer Township, 
ward 2, precinct 6, of Oklahoma City, and ward 2, precinct 9, of Oklahoma 
City ; that in each of said townships and precincts the precinct inspectors made 
an amended return to the original return, setting forth that no legal election 
was held in any of said townships or precincts, that the officials were intimi- 
dated and threats of criminal prosecution made, and asking that the vote of 
said townships and precincts be not counted ; that it would be too cumbersome 
to set up each amended return in said Oklahoma County, township, and pre- 
cincts, but that a true and correct copy of the returns, so made by the pre- 
cinct election officials in each of said townships and precincts of said Oklahoma 
County is hereto attached, marked " Exhibit D," and expressly made a part 
hereof, and that upon the hearing of this contest proof will be introduced 
showing that in each of said precincts said amended returns were so made, 
and that the county election board of Oklahoma County, Okla., wrongfully 
refused to correct the returns in conformity with said amended returns and 
to reject the vote in such townships and precincts, each of said precincts and 
townships constituting in itself an election precinct at said election. 

That in said Oklahoma County fully 700 negroes, who were illegal voters, 
were permitted to vote without the test prescribed in the said so-called grand- 
father clause, and that said number of votes did change the result on the face 
of the returns for the said contestee and against the said contestant ; upon all 
of which matters, as set forth in this paragraph, contestant desires to offer 
due proof upon the hearing of this contest. 

Eighth. That in Blaine County, which was then and there in the said 
congressional district, and where the precinct election officials were intimidated 
into permitting large numbers of illegal negro voters to vote, on account of 
the matters and things and in the manner heretofore set forth in paragraph 
6 of this notice of contest, and without applying the test provided for in 
said so-called grandfather clause, and in the townships of East Watauga, East 
Lincoln, West Dixon, River, Watanga, Flynn, Logan, Arapaho, Cedar Valley, 
Wells, and in the third ward of Geary, all of which are in the said Blaine 
County, there was 247 illegal votes cast in favor of the contestee as against the 
contestant, and that upon the hearing of this contest contestant desires to, 
and will, introduce proof of the same. 

Ninth. That in Canadian County, at said election, and in the precincts A 
and B, and of the second ward of El Reno, there were cast, in the manner and 
form heretofore set out in this petition, 162 illegal votes in favor of the con- 
testee as against the contestant, and on account of the matters and things as 
heretofore set forth in the sixth paragraph of this notice of contest, the pre- 
cinct election officials, in fraud of the rights of this contestant, and in fear of 
criminal prosecution, and on account of the threats aforesaid, so permitted said 
illegal votes to be cast, and that without said illegal votes of the said persons 
in said Canadian County in said precincts it would be impossible to determine 
what the real result would have been, and that upon the hearing of this con- 



6 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

test your contestant will introduce proof in support of the charge set forth in 
this paragraph. 

Tenth. That in Caddo County, which was then and there in said congressional 
district and in the first ward of the city of Anadarko, and in the second ward of 

the city of Anadarko. an.-d in and townships in said Caddo 

County, there were 162 votes cast in favor of the contestee as against the con- 
testant on account of the matters and things heretofore set forth herein in 
reference to the fraud and intimidation used as against the precinct election 
officials of said county, and that it would be impossible to determine what the 
lesult would have been in the said precincts and townships of said Caddo 
County without the illegal vote cast therein, and that upon the hearing of this 
contest your contestant will introduce proof in support of the matters and 
things set forth in this paragi'aph. 

Eleventh. That in Custer County, and in the ward of the city of Clinton, 

and in Weatherford, ward 1 and wards 2 and 3, and Cedar and Grant precincts 
townships, there were 144 illegal votes cast and recorded in favor of the 
said contestee as against this contestant, on account of the matters and things 
set forth in paragraph sixth of this notice of contest, and on account of the 
fraud, threats, and intimidation, as aforesaid, so as to prevent the said election 
officials of the said Custer County from conducting in said precincts a fair and 
honest election and from requiring the test provided by the said grandfather 
clause, and that it would be impossible to determine what the result would 
have been in said precincts and townships in said Custer County without the 
said illegal votes so cast, and that upon the hearing of this contest the said 
contestant will offer proof in support of the matters and things set forth in 
this paragraph. 

Twelfth. That in Alfalfa County, Okla., and in and townships, 

there were 81 illegal votes cast and recorded in favor of the contestee as 
against the contestant, on account of the matters and things heretofore set 
forth in reference to the fraud and intimidation used to prevent the said 
precinct election officials from discharging their duties as election officials, 
and that in said townships it would be impossible to determine what the 
result would have been without said illegal votes, and that upon the hearing 
of this contest your contestant will offer proof in support of the matters and 
things set forth in this paragraph. 

Thirteenth. That in reference to the illegal votes cast in Oklahoma County, 
Blaine County, Canadian County, Caddo County, Custer County, and Alfalfa 
County, all of which are in the paid congressional district, and were so in the 
said congressional district at the said general election of November 5, A. D. 
1912, the precinct election officials were intimidated by the said Boardman letter 
and the said threatening circular, and that each and every one of said precinct 
election officials received the same in due course of mail prior to said election, 
and in fear of criminal prosecution permitted large numbers of illegal votes to 
be cast, without which, as aforesaid, your contestant, upon the face of the 
returns themselves, would have had a clear plurality over the said contestee; 
and your contestant asks that the votes so illegally cast in the said precincts 
be rejected, because the election in said precincts and townships in said counties 
were not conducted according to law, as aforesaid, and because of said fraud, 
threats, and intimidation were connived at and encouraged by the said contestee 
and were for his benefit, although your contestant did protest at said election 
and prior thereto, and still protests against the same. 

Fourteenth. That in seven precincts of Texas County, which was then and 
there in said congressional district, and is now in said congressional district, 
in the general election held for the said office on the 5th day of November, 
A. D. 1912, no returns were made to the county election board by the precinct 
election officials of said seven precincts, although elections were held in said 
seven precincts, and that the names of said precincts were and are well known 
to this contestee ; that the precinct election officials held elections in said seven 
precincts upon the 5th day of November, A. D. 1912 ; that the ballot boxes were 
securely locked and the ballots deposited therein ; that since said election the 
said ballots have not been tampered with ; that they have been under lock and 
key and securely protected since said election, and that upon the hearing of this 
contest and the taking of proof in support of the same your contestant re- 
quests that said ballot boxes containing the ballots cast for said seven precincts 
in said Texas County be duly presented for opening, and that the ballots in 
said seven precincts be then and there counted as between your contestant and 
the contestee, and that the result thereof be ascertained according to law, your 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. "^ 7 

contestant alleging that the vote in said precincts will show that your con- 
testant received 318 votes in said seven precincts and your contestee 162 votes, 
and that your contestant have an order requiring the county election board of 
Texas County securely to keep said ballot boxes of the said seven precincts, to 
the end that the ballots cast in the said seven precincts may be counted as 
affecting the result as between your contestant and contestee, and so that 
proof may be introduced, when evidence is taken in support of this contest, as to 
the vote in said seven precincts in said Texas County. 

Fifteenth. Tour contestant further alleges and states that in Logan Township, 
Beaver County, Okla., which was then and there and is now in the second con- 
gressional district of the State of Oklahoma, no election was held according to 
law, and that upon the fact of the i-eturns your contestee is accredited with 81 
votes in said Logan Township and your contestant with 44 ; that every plain 
and mandatory provision of the election laws of the State of Oklahoma were 
violated in said precinct; that during the day as high as 12 at a time were in 
the precinct voting booth, showing each other their ballots and telling each other 
how to vote ; that as high as 20 were in the polling place at once, in violation of 
the mandatory provisions of the election laws of the State of Oklahoma, and 
that the vote in said precinct (the same being Precinct No. 1, Logan Township, 
Beaver County) should be rejected, and that your contestant will offer proof in 
support of the allegations of this paragraph upon the hearing of this contest. 

Sixteenth. That in each of the precincts of Texas County, Okla., the election 
was not held according to law, and that there were in said county cast, illegally, 
for the contestee 398 votes, and that your contestant, upon the hearing of this 
contest, will offer proof as to the conduct of the election in the said Texas 
County, and asks that an order be issued to the county election board of the 
said Texas County to securely keep all the ballot boxes of said county until the 
same may be duly opened by lawful order upon the taking of testimony in this 
contest ; that the pretended official returns from said Texas County only gave 
your contestant a plurality of 49 votes over the contestee, when in truth and in 
fact in said Texas County your contestant had a plurality over the said con- 
testee of 447 votes. 

Seventeenth. That in each and every county of said congressional district, 
fraud, intimidation, and illegal voting was practiced in behalf of the said con- 
testee and as against the said contestant, in support of which your contestant 
will offer proof at the hearing of this contest, and that said fraud, illegal voting, 
and intimidation were enough to change the result in favor of this contestant 
as against the contestee. 

Eighteenth. That upon the 7th day of November, A. D. 1912, your contestant 
duly filed his protest and objection to the issuance of a certificate of election 
as Member of Congress from the second congressional district of the State of 
Oklahoma to your contestee, Dick T. Morgan, but that, in fraud of the rights 
of this contestant, the said State election board as aforesaid issued a certificate 
of election to the said contestee as aforesaid. 

Nineteenth. That in said election in said congressional district 1,740 negroes 
Voted ; that none of said negroes had ever been legally enfranchised ; that none 
of them were qualified voters of the State of Oklahoma or of the United States ; 
that the negro race had never been enfranchised according to law, and that the 
so-called fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United 
States of America have never been legally adopted, and are not now and were 
not then and were not at the general election of November 5, 1912, in full force 
and effect, and that said negroes voted for this contestee, and that without said 
illegal negro vote this contestant would have been elected upon even the face of 
the returns. 

Wherefore your contestant, John J. Carney, gives contestee this notice that he 
Intends to contest the said election, and asks that he be declared the duly 
elected Member of Congress from the second congressional district of the State 
of Oklahoma ; that he be awarded his seat as a Member of Congress from the 
said congressional district according to law; that on account of the fraud, 
intimidation, and threats, as aforesaid, the election in the said congressional 
district, in so far as it affects this contest, be thoroughly probed and investigated 
and the result determined as the evidence and law will warrant, and for such 
other relief as your contestant, John J. Carney, may be entitled to in the 
premises. 

John J. Carney, Contestant, 
By Geo. H. Giddings & E. J. Giddings, 

Attorneys for Contestant. 



8 CAKNEY VS. MORGAN. 

State of Oklahoma, 

Oklahoma County, ss: 
John J. Carney, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that 
he is the contestant above named; that he has read the above and foregoing 
notice of grounds of contest; and that the statements therein contained are 
true, as he verily believes. 

John J. Cabney. 

Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me this the 12th day of 
December, A. D. 1912. 

[SEAL.] Mary S. Hill, 

Notary Public, Oklahoma County, Okla. 
My commission expires November 21, 1915. 



ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE. 

I, Dick T. Morgan, contestee named in the foregoing notice of grounds of 
contest, hereby acknowledge service of a true and correct duplicate of the 
within notice of grounds of contest upon me, at the city of Washington, in the 
District of Columbia, on this the day of December, A. D. 1912. 



Contestee. 



Exhibit A. 

[Amendment to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, section 4a of article 3.] 

No person shall be registered as an elector of this State or be allowed to 
vote in any election held herein unless he be able to read and write any sec- 
tion of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma ; but no person who was, on 
January 1, 1866, or at any time prior thereto entitled to vote under any form of 
government, or who at that time resided in some foreign nation, and no lineal 
descendant of such person shall be denied the right to register and vote be- 
cause of his inability to so read and write sections of such constitution. 

Precinct election inspectors having in charge the registration of electors 
shall enforce the provisions of this section at the time of registration, provided 
registration be required. Should registration be dispensed with, the precinct 
election officers, when electors, apply for ballots to vote. 



Exhibit B. 

Department of Justice, 
Office of the United States Attorney, 

Western District of Oklahoma, 

Guthrie, October 31, 1912. 
Mr. Fred A, Wagoner, 

Deputy County Attorney, Chandler, Okla. 
Dear Sir: I have your letter asking whether at the coming general election 
the precinct election ofiicers can enforce the law commonly termed the " grand- 
father law," and escape punishment therefor in the Federal courts on a show- 
ing of good faith in enforcing said law. I presume your question has arisen 
on account of the apparent conflict between the decision of the supreme court 
of the State of Oklahoma and the United States District Courts for the Eastern 
and Western Districts of Oklahoma on the constitutionality of the law, the 
State supreme court having held the law constitutional, while the two United 
States courts in the State have held it unconstitutional and void. 

It must be borne in mind that this all involves purely State matters as well 
as Federal matters, and in considering the same these two phases of the law 
must be kept in mind. As to the purely State questions involved in the law, I 
do not express any opinion, the same not being within the jurisdiction of this 
office, and this opinion is directed solely to the Federal question involved ; that 
is, the application of the grandfather law to negroes who, on account of race, 
color, and previous condition of servitude, are not permitted to vote without 



CAEJSTEY VS. MOKGAN. 4 9 

submitting to certain tests of reading and writing. Nor shall I argue the 
question of the constitutionality of the law, for the reason that, after very ex- 
tensive argument by some of the best legal talent of the State, it has already 
been in positive terms declared unconstitutional by the two United States 
district courts in this State, which decisions are now the law of this State as 
far as the Federal questions therein involved are concerned, having never been 
reversed or modified. 

Knowing this, that the Federal courts having jurisdiction over the entire State 
have declared the law to be unconstitutional and of no force and effect, the 
question arises whether the precinct election officers can enforce it against 
negroes on account of their race and color, and then when prosecuted in a Fed- 
eral court for doing so defend the prosecution on a plea of good faith in enforcing 
the law. The question of good faith must be determined with reference to the 
decision of the courts on the subject and having jurisdiction thereof, so there 
can be no good faith in acting in direct conflict with the known decisions of the 
courts, although in the absence of any such decisions such defense might be made. 
In the case against Beall and Quinn, who were convicted in the Federal court at 
Enid, in 1911. for violating section 19 of the Federal Criminal Code in enforc- 
ing the grandfather law at the general election in November, 1910, the de- 
fense of good faith was attempted, although without success, as the verdict 
of the jury disclosed. However, in that case at the time the acts were com- 
mitted which caused a prosecution — that is, in November, 1910 — no Federal 
court had passed upon the law. 

Furthermore, all precinct election officers are quasi judicial officers in a 
quasi judicial capacity, and being officers of inferior and restricted jurisdiction 
are all bound by the decisions of the Federal courts declaring the law uncon- 
stitutional when applying the same to negroes desiring to vote for Members of 
Congress and electors for President, and the defense of good faith will not 
protect them from prosecution for enforcing the law in direct conflict with the 
Federal decisions. 

Respectfully, Homer N. Boardman, 

United States Attorney. 



Exhibit C. 

talk it over wit.h your wife, mr. election official, and remember that 
you will go to the penitentiary 

if you violate the Federal election laws, and not Gov. Cruce nor his brother, 
Attorney A. C. Cruce. You will remember that the latter defended Beall and 
Quinn, who last year were convicted in the United States court at Enid and 
sentenced to the penitentiary for violating the Federal election law, and the 
State paid the attorneys in these cases about $14,000 for defending these two 
men. This averages about $7,000 per case. It is not likely that the people of 
this State, already overburdened with taxes, will be willing to continue to pay 
out $7,000 every time an election official violates the Federal statutes. The 
people are not sufficiently anxious to enrich the governor's brother. Attorney 
A. C. Cruce. Besides, what's the use? Where conviction is sure, there is 
nothing gained by paying out big sums of money for attorney fees. That is to 
say, there is nothing gained by anyone but the attorney. 



Exhibit D. 

Ametided return. 
State of Oklahoma, 

Oklahoma County, ss: 

, of lawful age, declares that at the general election held in the 

State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, 1912, he was the duly qualified, 

appointed, and acting -^ of precinct — , ward ■ — , Oklahoma City, said State. 

That an election was held in said precinct on that day; that intimidation was 
used against the election officials in said precinct, and threats of criminal prose- 
cution made to the end that many negroes, who would be illegal voters, might 
vote; and that at said election in said precinct so many negroes did vote under 
the above-mentioned circumstances that it is impossible to determine what the 



rO CAKNEY VS. MORGAN. 

vote and result in said precinct would have been had not such facts and con- 
ditions existed as above stated; and this affiant asks that this amended return 
be made a part of the original returns from said precinct, and that said vote 
be not canvassed and the result in said precinct be not declared. 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 1912. 



Notary Puhlic. 
My commission expires . 



of lawful age, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he 



served upon the Hon. Dick T. Morgan, contestee, a true and correct duplicate 

of the within notice of grounds of conest of John J. Carney, on the day of 

December, A. D. 1912, by delivering to the said Hon. Dick T. Morgan, personally, 
said true and correct duplicate, at . 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of December, 1912. 



AN8WER TO NOTICE OF CONTEST. 

Comes now Dick T. Morgan, the contestee in tlie above-entitled cause, and 
for answer to the notice of contest of the said contestant, contesting the elec- 
tion of this contestee as Representative to the Sixty-third Congress of the 
United States of America, from the second congressional district of the State of 
Oklahoma, at the general election held in said district in said State on the 
5th day of November, 1912, and reserving unto himself the right to hereafter 
object to the manner and time of the service and filing of the contestant's 
notice of contest, and reserving unto himself the right to hereafter object to 
said notice of contest because of the insufliciency, incompetency, irrelevancy, 
immateriality, vagueness, and uncertainty of each, every, and all of the allega- 
tions and grounds of contest contained in said notice of contest of said con- 
testant, and insisting that the said contestant be placed upon strict proof of 
all allegations contained in the several grounds and paragraphs contained in 
said notice of contest: 

First. Denies each, every, and all of the material allegations contained in 
and under the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, 
tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, 
eighteenth, and nineteenth grounds or paragraphs of contest contained in said 
notice of contest, and denies each and every and all of the material allegations 
contained in said notice, save and except such as may hereafter be specifically 
admitted. 

Second. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in para- 
graph 1 of contestant's notice of contest this contestee alleges and states that he 
specifically denies that at the regular election held in the second congressional 
district of the State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, 1912, the said 
contestant, John J. Carney, was the duly and regularly chosen and qualified 
nominee of the Democratic Party for the oflice of Congressman from the second 
district of the State of Oklahoma, as will be hereinafer set up, though this 
contestee admits that the name of the said contestant, John J. Carney, appeared 
upon the oflicial ballot in said election as the candidate of the said party for 
the said office, and this contestee admits that he, the said contestee, Dick T. 
Morgan, was the duly and regularly chosen and qualified nominee of the Re- 
publican Party for the office of Congressman from the second district of the 
State of Oklahoma ; that his name appeared upon the official ballot in said 
election as the candidate of said Republican Party for such office, and that 
there was an election held for said office in the State of Oklahoma on the 5th 
day of November, 1912. 

Third. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 
2 of contestant's notice cf contest this contestee admits that on or about the 
22d day of November, 1912, the State election board of the State of Oklahoma 
canvassed the official returns of the various counties in said congressional dis- 
trict, and tabulated the votes returned for contestant and this contestee, and 
that upon the completion hereof said State election board announced that this 
contestee, Dick T. Morgan, was duly and legally elected to said office, and that 
thereupon said State election board, on or about said 22d day of November, 
1912, issued and delivered to this eontes'ee, Dick T. Morgan, a certificate of 
such election. 

Fourth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in para- 
graph 3 of the contestant's notice of contest this contestee admits, as herein- 
after specifically set forth under paragraphs 2 and 3 of this contestee's cross 
petition, and only to that extent, that the oflftcial returns of the vo'es cast at 
said election for the said contestant and said contestee, as made by the various 
precinct election boards in the counties of the said second congressional dis- 
trict of the State of Oklahoma to said State election board, and, as aforesaid, 
canvassed by the said State election board, were and are false, imtrue, and 
incorrect, and did not and do not show the true and correct number of legal 
votes cast for the said alleged nominee, John J. Carney, and the contestee, Dick 
T. Morgan, at said elecion for said office : but this contestee denies specifically 

11 



12 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN-. 



fnfJ^ said alleged nominee, John J. Carney, at said election received 25,171 
^otes, and this contestee denies that he only received 22,594 votes and alle-es 
and states as will be hereinafter shown under sections 2 and 3 of his c?Sss 
petition set out specifically, that he in truth and in fact received "4 945 votes 
and that said 24,945 votes so received by this contestee as afo/esald were and 
are a plurality of all votes cast for all the candidates for said officrat saW 
election; and this contestee specifically denies that the said alleged nominee 
John J. Carney, the contestant herein, was duly and legally elected or entitledi 
to a certificate of election to the office of Congressman frmn the seJond cTn 
gressional district of the State of Oklahoma, or that he, the said alleged nomi- 
^,^,!.'/^?V^^^*^S; ^^^®?ul^^"^y ^^titled to represent the second congressional dis- 
trict o± the State of Oklahoma in the Sixty-third session of Congress for the 
period prescribed therefor by law. & xui uue 

Fifth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in the fourth 
paragraph of contestant's notice of contest this contestee further admits that 
on the 2d day of August, 1910, the people of the State of Oklahoma adopted an 
amendment to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma substantially as set 
forth m paragraph 4 of said notice of contest of said contestant, and this con- 
testee denies that said amendment is valid under the Constitution of the United 
States or that its provisions are applicable in an election for Representative in 
the Congress of the United States. 

Sixth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in the fifth 
paragraph of contestant's notice of contest this contestee further fidmits that 
under the terms of the amendment to the constitution of the State of Okla- 
homa and under the laws of the State of Oklahoma registration was required 
of all voters in cities of the first class as a prerequisite to the right to vote, 
but this contestee specifically denies that the registration officers in cities in 
said congressional district wrongfully permitted 1,021 negroes to register at 
said election, who voted for said contestee at said general election upon the 
5th day of November, 1912; and especially does this contestee deny that any 
or all of the said alleged facts as set forth in paragraph 5 of said notice of said 
contestant were at said time or are now known to the said contestee, or that the 
said number of or any illegal votes so registered did not qualify under the 
terms and provisions of the said amendment to the constitution of the State of 
Oklahoma, and this contestee denies that any negroes voted in said cities except 
such as were duly registered after qualifying under the said laws of the State 
of Oklahoma. 

And for further answer this contestee alleges and states that said allegations 
in said paragraph concerning the number of illiterate negroes or negroes who 
did not qualify for registration under the terms and provisions of the so-called 
grandfather clause could not in any event be true, for the reason that there 
were at that time in cities in the said second congressional district only 213 
illiterate male negroes over the age of 21 years, none of whom were registered, 
and for this reason this contestee hereby objects to the vague and uncertain 
reference in said contestant's notice of contest to the number of negroes so 
alleged as having been wrongfully registered in the cities in said district ; and 
this contestee asks and demands that the said contestant forthwith furnish to 
this contestee the names and addresses of the said alleged 1,021 negroes which 
said contestant alleges were unlawfully and wrongfully permitted to register. 

Seventh. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in the sixth 
paragraph of contestant's notice of contest this contestee further admits that 
at the time of said election, and for some time prior thereto, and at all times 
mentioned in the sixth paragraph of the contestant's notice of contest, one 
Homer N. Boardman was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting United 
States district attorney for the western district of the State of Oklahoma ; that 
practically all of the second congressional district is within that part of the 
State of Oklahoma which comprises the said western judicial district of the 
State of Oklahoma, but this contestee is informed and believes that no letter 
or opinion of the sort, kind, or character as set forth in said sixth paragraph 
of said notice of contest of said contestant, a copy of said alleged letter or 
opinion being attached to contestant's notice of conlest and marked "Exhibit 
B," was written by the said Boardman, and this contestee therefore denies 
that said Boardman wrote a letter or opinion of the sort, kind, or character as 
set forth in said notice of contest, and demands strict proof of the same; and 
if the said Boardman did so write a letter of said sort, this contestee denies 
that it was written with the consent, knowledge, approbation, or connivance of 
this contestee ; and this contestee denies that he entered into a conspiracy to, or 



CAENEY VS. MOKGAN. 13 

was a party to, or laad any knowledge until long after the said 5tli day of Novem- 
ber, 1912, of any claim that any letter of the sort or kind or character as set 
forth in said sixth paragraph of said notice of contest had been in circulation 
in any manner whatsoever, and this contestee denies that said alleged so-called 
warning circular, an alleged copy of which is attached to said contestant's 
notice of contest and marked " Exhibit C," was written by the said Boardman, 
and denies that said alleged " warning circular " wag written or composed by 
the contestee, or with the consent, knowledge, approbation, or connivance of 
the contestee; and this contestee denies that he entered into a conspiracy to, 
or was a party to, or had knowledge until long after the said 5th day of Novem- 
ber, 1912, of any claim that any circular of this kind or character "as set forth 
in said sixth paragraph of said notice of contest had been in circulation in any 
manner whatsoever ; and this contestee neither admitting nor denying that said 
alleged letter or opinion or said alleged " warning circular " were in fact mailed 
to every precinct election official in the second congressional district of the 
State of Oklahoma, for the reason that he is totally unacquainted with the 
truth or falsity thereof, and he therefore denies said allegation and demands 
and prays that contestant be placed upon strict proof of the same; but should 
it appear that copies of the said alleged opinion and said alleged "warning, 
circular " were in fact so sent to every precinct election official in said second 
congressional district of the State of Oklahoma, this contestee denies that it 
was done with his consent, knowledge, or connivance, or that they had the 
effect of intimidating the precinct election officials who conducted the said elec- 
tion for Congressman in the second congressional district of the State of Okla- 
homa or prevented them from conducting said election according to law; and 
this contestee denies that they had the effect of preventing the holding of a 
fair and legal election and denies that they had the effect of causing said elec- 
tion officials to allow any illegal or disqualified negro voters to vote at said 
election; and this contestee denies that the precinct election officers in any 
precinct in said district permitted any negroes to Aote except such as were 
under said alleged amendment to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma 
and the laws of the State of Oklahoma qualified to vote; and this contestee 
alleges and states that if any negroes were allowed to vote in any election pre- 
cinct in said second congressional district said negroes were legally qualified 
electors under the constitution of the State of Oklahoma and amendments 
thereto, and under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, and were entitled to vote 
and exercise the right of suffrage in the selection of a Member of Congress 
from the second congressional district of the State of Oklahoma as one of the 
privileges guaranteed to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 
And this contestee denies specifically that the names of illegal negro voters are 
known to him ; and this contestee hereby objects co the vague and uncertain 
reference in said sixth paragraph of said contestant's notice of contest as to 
the number of alleged illegal negro votes, and this contestee hereby demands 
of said contestant that he furnish to this contestee forthwith the names and 
addresses of any negroes who, as said contestant claims, were illegally or im- 
lawfully allowed to vote at said election. That this contestee is informed and 
believes that the election officers in all precincts in said district in which negroes 
presented themselves to vote applied the test required under the amendment to 
the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, as set forth hereinbefore, and that 
all negroes who were allowed to vote in said district were legal and qualified 
electors, and that their votes should be counted; and this contestee alleges and 
states that even if the statements and allegations contained in said sixth ground 
of said notice of contest were true that it would not be sufficient ground for 
throwing out and not counting for this contestee said votes, or any of them. 
And this contestee further denies that he had at any time prior to the said date 
of said election, to wit, the 5th day of November, 1912, or that he had at any 
time up to this date, acquired knowledge that said letter or opinion and said 
" warning circular " had been sent to every or any of the precinct election 
officials in the second congressional district of the State of Oklahoma, or that 
they had been or were received by said election officials in due course of mail, 
or in any other manner prior to said election ; and this contestee denies that 
the said Homer N. Boardman or other Federal officials in the State of Okla- 
homa intimidated the said precinct election officials or caused them to fail to 
perform their duties as required by law ; and this contestee denies that said 
election officials were intimidated or failed to perform their official duties as 
precinct inspectors as required by law; and this contestee denies that he con- 
nived at, encouraged, or otherwise aided or abetted the said Homer N. Board- 



14 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

man or other Federal officials in the State of Oklahoma in intimidating the said 
precinct election officials or in causing them to fail to perform their official 
duties as required by the constitution of the State of Olilahoma, the amend- 
ments thereto, and the laws of the State of Oklahoma ; and this contestee denies 
the legal conclusion of the said contestant that fraud was perpetrated upon the 
contestant or that he was deprived of the certificate of election or that the 
contestant has or would have a plurality in said election over the contestee. 

Eighth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 
7 of said contestant's notice of contest, this contestee admits that Oklahoma 
County, Okla., is in the said second congressional district ; that this contestee 
denies that in the said precincts of said county, as set forth in said paragraph, 
to wit, Luther Township, Deep Fork Township, Lincoln Township, town of 
Luther. Choctaw Township, Crutcho Township, Dewey Township, Springer 
Township, ward 2, precinct 6, of Oklahoma City, and ward 2, precinct 9, of 
Oklahoma City, any fraud, intimidation, or threats were used to the advantage 
of the said contestee, or that any illegal votes were cast in said precincts, and 
this contestee denies that the precinct election officials in said election precincts 
allowed any illegal or disqualified negro voters to vote at said election, and this 
contestee denies that the precinct election officials allowed or permitted any 
negroes to vote, except such as were qualified to vote under the constitution 
of the State of Oklahoma and amendments thereto and under the laws of the 
State of Oklahoma and were entitled to vote and exercise the right of suffrage 
in the selection of a Member of Congress from the second congressional dis- 
trict of the State of Oklahoma, as one of the privileges guaranteed to them 
by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

The contestee hereby objects to the vague and uncertain reference in said 
paragraph 7 of contestant's notice of contest to the number of negroes who, 
as claimed by the contestant, were illegally allowed to vote, and this contestee 
alleges and states that there were at that time in said Oklahoma County only 
286 illiterate male negroes over the age of 21 years, and this contestee hereby 
demands of the said contestant that he furnish to this contestee forthwith the 
names and addresses of any and all negroes whom the contestant claims were 
illegally and unlawfully allowed to vote at said election in said precincts. 
That this contestee is informed and believes, and therefore states it to be a fact, 
that the precinct election officers in said precincts when negroes presented 
themselves to vote applied the test required under and by the terms of the 
amendment to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, as heretofore set 
forth herein, and that all negroes who were allowed to vote in said above- 
mentioned election precincts were legal and qualified electors and voters and 
that their votes should be counted, and this contestee alleges and states that 
even if the statements and allegations contained in said seventh paragraph 
of contestant's notice of contest were true that it would not be sufficient 
ground for throwing out and not counting for this contestee said votes in said 
precincts or any of them. 

That in respect to the said alleged amended return of the precinct election 
officers in said above-mentioned precincts in Oklahoma County, this contestee 
neither admits nor denies the allegations in said seventh paragraph of said 
contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that he is personally totally 
unacquainted with the truth or falsity of the said allegations, but he is in- 
formed and believes and therefore states it to be a fact that none of the said 
precinct election inspectors in said above-mentioned precincts in Oklahoma 
County made, executed, or delivered to the county election board of Oklahoma 
County, State of Oklahoma, an amended return to the original return, setting 
forth that no legal election was held in said precincts or that the said officials 
were intimidated or threatened with criminal prosecution of any sort whatso- 
ever, or that said precinct election officials asked by said alleged amended 
return that the vote in said township or election precinct be not counted, and 
this contestee hereby demands of the said contestant that he forthwith furnish 
to this contestee the names and addresses of said precinct election officials 
signing said alleged amended returns, if in fact they were so made, and that 
the said contestant forthwith furnish to this contestee the names and addresses 
of the 700 negroes who were illegally permitted to vote at said election without 
the test prescribed by the said amendment to the constitution of the State of 
Oklahoma, commonly known and referred to by the contestant as the " grand- 
father clause," and this contestee denies that the said county election board 
of Oklahoma County wrongfully refused to correct the returns in conformity 
with said alleged amended returns or reject the vote in said townships and 



CAEISTEY VS. MORGAN. jl5 

election precincts, and this contestee alleges and states that even if said 
amended returns were in fact so made by said precinct election officials, as set 
forth in said seventh paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, that said 
alleged amended returns were of no binding force or effect and that said 
alleged amended returns were not the sort, kind, or character of returns which 
said precinct election officials were required to make to the county election 
board of said countj^ of Oklahoma under the terms and provisions of the laws 
of the State of Oklahoma. 

Ninth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 
8 of said contestant's notice of contest, this contestee admits that Blaine County 
is and was on said day of said election, to wit, the 5th day of November, 1912, 
in the second congressional district of the State of Oklahoma ; that this con- 
testee denies that in the precincts of said county, to wit, the township of East 
Watonga, East Lincoln, West Dixon, River, Watonga, Flynn, Logan, Arapahoe, 
Cedar Valley, Wells, and the third ward of Geary, any frauds, intimidation, 
or threats of the sort or kind or character set forth in paragraph 6 of con- 
testant's notice of contest, or of any sort, kind, or character whatsoever were 
used or practiced by anyone, or that for any reason whatsoever the election 
officials of said precincts permitted any negros to vote illegally or that there 
were any illegal votes cast in favor of this contestee as against said contestant, 
or that any fraud, intimidation, or threats were used therein to the advantage 
of this contestee, or that there were any illegal votes cast in said precincts, and 
this contestee denies that the precinct election officials in said election precincts 
allowed any illegal or disqualified negro voters to vote at said election, and this 
contestee denies that the precinct election officials allowed or permitted any 
negro to vote, except such as were qualified to vote under the constitution of 
the State of Oklahoma and amendments thereto and under the laws of the 
State of Oklahoma and were entitled to \ote and exercise the right of suffrage 
in the selection of a ISIember of Congress from the second congressional dis- 
trict of the State of Oklahoma, as one of the privileges guaranteed to them 
by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

The contestee hereby objects to the vague and uncertain reference in said 
eights paragraph of contestant's notice of contest as to the number of negroes 
who, as claimed by the contestant, were illegally allowed to vote, and this 
contestee alleges and states that there were at said time only 82 illiterate male 
negroes over the age of 21 years in all of said Blaine County, and this contestee 
hereby demands of the said contestant that he furnish to the contestee forth- 
with the names and addresses of any and all negroes whom the contestant 
claims were illegally and unlawfully allowed to vote at said election in said 
precincts. That this contestee is informed and believes, and therefore states 
it to be a fact, that the precinct election officers in said precincts when negroes 
presented themselves to vote applied the test required under and by the terms 
of the amendment to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, as heretofore 
set forth herein, and that all negroes who were allowed to vote in said above- 
mentioned election precincts were legal and qualified electors and voters and 
that their votes should be counted, and this contestee alleges and states that 
even if the statements and allegations contained in said eighth paragraph of 
contestant's notice of contest were true that it would not be sufficient ground 
for throwing out and not counting for this contestee said votes in said pre- 
cincts or any of them. 

Tenth. For answer to the statements and allegations of the ninth paragraph 
of contestant's notice of contest, this contestee deaies that in the precincts of 
said county, to wit, precincts A and B of the second ward of El Reno, any 
fraud, intimidation, or threats were used to the advantage of this contestee as 
against the said contestant, or that the precinct election officials in fraud of 
the rights of the contestant or in fear of criminal prosecution or on account 
of any threats permitted any illegal votes to be cast, and the contestee denies 
that any frauds, intimidations, or threats of the sort or kind or character set 
forth in paragraph 6 of contestant's notice of contest, or of any sort, kind, 
or character whatsoever, were used or practiced by anyone, or that for any 
reason whatsoever the election officials of said precincts permitted any negroes 
to vote illegally, or that there were any illegal votes cast in favor of this 
contestee as against said contestant, or that any fraud, intimidation, or threats 
were used therein to the advantage of this contestee, or that there were any 
illegal votes cast in said precincts, and this contestee denies that the precinct 
election officials in said election precincts allowed any illegal or disqualified negro 
voters to vote at said election, and this contestee denies that the precinct election 



16 CAKNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

officials allowed or permitted auy negroes to vote, except such as were qualified 
to vote under tlie constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the amendments 
thereto and under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and were entitled to vote 
and exercise the right of suffrage in the selection of a Member of Congress from 
the second congressional district of the State of Oklahoma, as one of the 
privileges guaranteed to them by the Constitution and ! ''vs of the United States. 

The contestee hereby objects to the vague and uncertain reference in said 
ninth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest to the number of negroes who, 
as claimed by the contestant, were illegally allowed to vote, and this contestee 
alleges and states that there were at said time only 34 illiterate male negroes 
over the age of 21 years in all of said Canadian County, and this contestee 
hereby demands of the said contestant that he furnish to the contestee forth- 
with the names and addresses of any and all negroes whom the contestant 
claims were illegally and unlawfully allowed to vote at said election in said 
precincts. That this contestee is informed and believes, and therefore states 
it to be a fact, that the precinct election officers in said precincts when negroes 
presented themselves to vote applied the test required under and by the terms 
of the said amendment to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and that 
all negroes who were allowed to vote in said above-mentioned election precincts 
were legal and qualified electors and voters and that their votes should be 
counted, and this contestee alleges and states that even if the statements and 
allegations contained in said ninth paragraph of contestant's notice of con- 
test were true, that it would not be suflicient ground for throwing out and 
not counting for this contestee said votes in said precincts or any of them. 

Eleventh. For answer to the statements and allegations set up in the fenth 
paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, this contestee alleges and states 
that he admits that Caddo Countj', Okla.. is in the said second congressional 
district of the State of Oklahoma ; that this contestee denies that in said pre- 
cincts of said county as set forth in said paragraph, to wit, the first ward of 

the city of Anadarko, the second ward of the city of Anadarko, 

and , townships, all in said Caddo County, any fraud, intimidation, or 

threats were used to the advantage of this contestee as against the said con- 
testant or that the precinct election officials in fraud of the rights of the con- 
testant or in fear of criminal prosecution or on account of any threats permitted 
any illegal votes to be cast, and this contestee denies that any frauds, intimi- 
dation, or threats of the sort or kind or character set forth in paragraph 6 
of contestant's notice of contest, or of any sort, kind, or character whatsoever, 
were used or practiced by anyone, or that for any reason whatsoever the election 
officials of said precincts permitted any negroes to vote illegally or that there 
were any illegal votes cast in favor of this contestee as against said contestant, 
or that any fraud, intimidation, or threats were used therein to the advantage 
of this contestee, or that there were any illegal votes cast in said precincts, 
and this contestee denies that the precinct election officials in said election 
precincts allowed any illegal or disqualified negro voters to vote at said 
election, and this contestee denies that the precinct election officials allowed or 
permitted any negroes to vote, except such as were qualified to vote under the 
constitution of the State of Oklahoma and amendments thereto, and under the 
laws of the State of Oklahoma, and were entitled to vote and exercise the right 
of suffrage in the selection of a Member of Congress from the second congres- 
sional district of the State of Oklahoma, as one of the privileges guaranteed to 
them by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

The contestee hereby objects to the vague and uncertain reference in said 
tenth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest to the number of negroes who, 
as claimed by the contestant, were illegally allowed to A'ote, and this contestee 
alleges and states that there were at said time only 89 illiterate male negroes 
over the age of 21 years in all of said county, and this contestee hereby demands 
of the said contestant that he furnish to the contestee forthwith the names and 
addresses of any and all negroes whom the contestant claims were illegally and 
unlawfully allowed to A-ote at said election in said precincts. That this con- 
testee is informed and believes, and therefore states it to be a fact, that the 
precinct election officers in said precincts when negroes presented themselves to 
vote applied the test required under and by the terms of the said amendment 
to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and that all negroes who were 
allowed to vote in said above-mentioned election precincts were legal and 
qualified electors and voters and that their votes should be counted, and this 
contestee aheges and states that even if the statements and allegations con- 
tained in said tenth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest were true that 



CAElSrEY VS. MOEGAl^. 17 

it M^ould not be sufficient ground for throwing out and not counting for this 
contestee said votes In said precincts or any of them. 

Twelfth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in para- 
graph eleventh of the contestant's notice of contest : This contestee alleges and 
states that he admits that Custer County, Okla., is in tlie second congressional 
district of the State of Oklahoma ; that this contestee denies that in tlie pre- 
cincts of said county, as set forth in said paragraph, to wit : Ward 1 of the 
city of Weatherford, ward 2 of the city of Weatherford, ward 3 of the city of 
Weatherford, Cedar Township and Grant Precinct and Township, any fraud, 
intimidation, or threats were used to the advantage of the contestee as against 
the said contestant, or that the pref^inct election officials in fraud of the rights 
of the contestant or in fear of criminal prosecution or on account of any threats 
permitted any illegal votes to be cast, and this contestee denies that any frauds, 
intimidation, or threats of tlie sort of kind or character set forth in paragraph 
sixth of contestant's iiotice of contest, or of any sort, kind, or character whatso- 
ever were used or practiced by anyone, or that for any reason whatsoever 
the election officials of said precincts permitted any negroes to vote illegally, or 
that there were any illegal votes cast in favor of this contestee as against said 
contestant, or that any fraud, intimidation, or threats were used therein to th« 
advantage of this contestee, or that there were any illegal votes cast in said 
precincts. And this contestee denies that the precinct election officials in said 
election precincts allowed any illegal or disqualified negro voters to vote at spid 
election, and this contestee denies that the precinct election officials allowed or 
permitted any negroes to vote, except such as were qualified to vote under the 
constitution of the State of Oklahoma and amendments thereto and under the 
laws of the State of Oklahoma and were entitled to vote and exercise the right 
of suffrage in the selection of a Member of Congress from the second congres- 
sional district of the State of Oklalioma, as one of the privileges guaranteed to 
them by the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

The contestee hereby objects to the vague and uncertain reference in said 
eleventh paragraph of contestant's notice of contest to the number of negroes 
who, as claimed by the contestant, were illegally allowed to vote, and this con- 
testee alleges and states that there are and were on said election day only 13 
Illiterate male negroes over the age of 21 years in all of said county, and this 
contestee hereby demands of the said contestant that he furnish to the con- 
testee forthwith the names and addresses of any and all negroes whom the con- 
testant claims were illegally and unlawfully allowed to vote at said election in 
said precincts. That this contestee is informed and believes, and therefore 
states it to be a fact, that the precinct election officers in said precincts when 
negroes presented themselves to vote applied the test required under and by the 
terms of the amendment to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and that 
all negroes, who were allowed to vote in said above-mentioned election pre- 
cincts were legal and qualified electors and voters and that their votes should 
be counted, and this contestee alleges and states that even if the statements and 
allegations contained in said eleventh paragraph of contestant's notice of con- 
test were true that it would not be sufficient ground for throwing out and not 
counting for this contestee said votes in said precincts or any of them. 

Thirteenth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in para- 
graph 12 of contestant's notice of contest this contestee denies that in said 

precincts of said county of Alfalfa, as set forth in said paragraph, to wit : 

and Townships any fraud, intimidation, or threats were used to the 

advantage of this contestee as against the said contestant, or that the pre- 
cinct election officials, in fraud of the rights of the contestant, or in fear of 
criminal prosecution, or on account of any threats, permitted any illegal votes 
to be cast and the contestee denies that any frauds, intimidation, or threats 
of the sort of kind or character set forth in paragraph 6 of contestant's notice 
of contest, or of any sort, kind, or character whatsoever were used or practiced 
by anyone, or that for any reason whatsoever the election officials of said 
precincts permitted any negroes to vote illegally or that there were any illegal 
votes cast in favor of this contestee as against said contestant, or that any 
fraud, intimidation, or threats were used therein to the advantage of this con- 
testee, or that there were any illegal votes cast in said precincts, and this 
contestee denies that the precinct elecion officials in said election precincts 
allowed any illegal or disqualified negro voters to vote at said election, and 
this contestee denies that the precinct election officials allowed or permitted 
any negroes to vote, except such as were qualified to vote under the constitu- 
tion of the State of Oklahoma and amendments thereto and under the laws 

4252—13 2 



18 CAHKEY VS. MOBGAIS". 

of the State of Oklahoma and were entitled to vote and exercise the right of 
suflxage in the selection of a Member of Congress from the second congressional 
district of the State of Oklahoma, as one of the privileges guaranteed to them 
by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The contestee hereby objects 
to the vague and uncertain reference in said twelfth paragraph of contestant's 
notice of contest to the number of negroes who, as claimed by the contestant, 
were illegally allowed to vote, and this contestee alleges and states that there 
are now and were on said election day no illiterate male negroes over the age 
of 21 years in said Alfalfa County, and this contestee hereby demands of said 
contestant that he forthwith furnish to this contestee the names and addresses 
of any and all negroes whom the contestant claims were illegally and unlaw- 
fully allowed to vote at said election in said precincts. And this contestee is 
informed and believes and therefore states it to be a fact that the precinct 
election officials in said precincts, when negroes presented themselves to vote, 
applied the test required under and by virtue of the terms of the said amend- 
ment to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and that all negroes who were 
allowed to vote in said above-mentioned election precincts were legal and 
qualified electors and voters and that their votes should be counted, and this 
contestee alleges and states that even if the statements and allegations set 
forth in said twelfth paragraph of said contestant's notice of contest were true 
that it would not b sufBcient grovmd for throwing out and not counting for 
this contestee said votes in said precincts or any of them. 

Fourteenth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in para- 
graph 13 of said contestant's notice of contest, this contestee hereby reiterates 
and restates all of the allegations and statements by this contestee in paragraph 
7 of this his said answer and asks th^'t all of the said statements and allega- 
tions of said seventh paragraph of this the said contestee's answer be consid- 
ered as reiterated and restated herein as if the same were fully set out herein, 
and this contestee hereby refers to and makes said seventh paragraph of this 
answer a part of this the fourteenth paragraph of this answer, as fully and 
completely as if the same were set out and rewritten herein verbatim. 

Fifteenth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in the 
fourteenth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, this contestee admits 
that Texas County, Okla., is and was, on said day of said election, to wit, on 
the 5th day of November, 1912, in the second congressional district of the 
State of Oklahoma, but he denies that in seven precincts in said county, or in 
any precincts in said county, no returns were mnde to the county election 
board of said Texas County by the precinct election offic-ials, and this con- 
testee denies that the names of the said seven election precincts in said 
county, as to which said contestant in the fourteenth paragraph of his notice 
of contest alleges no returns were made by the precinct election officials to 
the said county election board were or are now known to him, and this contes-tee 
hereby demands that the said contestant forthwith furnish to this contetstee 
the names of the said alleged seven precincts in which contestant alleges in 
said fourteenth paragraph of his notice of contest, that no returns were made 
by the precinct election officials thereof to the county election board of said 
county ; and this contestee says that he is not informed as to the truth or 
falsity of the allegation by said contestant in said fourteenth paragraph of 
contestant's notice of contest, that the ballot boxes in said alleged seven pre- 
cincts were securely locked, the ballots deposited therein, that since the said 
election said ballots have not been tampered with and that they have been 
under lock and key and securely protected since said election, and he there- 
fore denies said allegations and asks and demands that the contestant be placed 
upon strict proof thereof; and this contestee asks and prays that said ballots 
be not counted as prayed for by contestant in said paragraph of said notice of 
contest for the reason that said ballots have not been kept according to law; 
that great opportunity has been given to change, alter, mutilate and destroy 
said ballots, and that at this time the true result of the said vote could not 
be determined ; and this contestee denies that the counting of said alleged bal- 
lots as alleged by said contestant would show that said contestant received 
318 votes, or that said counting would show that said contestee secured only 
162 votes, but this contestee alleges and states that should said ballots be 
counted, they will show that in said precincts this contestee received many 
more votes than the said contestant. 

Sixteenth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in the 
fifteenth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, this contestee admits that 
Beaver County, Okla., is and was on said day Of said election, to wit, on the 



GARNEY VS. M0E<5A1S-. 19 

5tli day of November, 1912, in the second congressional district of the State of 
Olclahoma, and that Logan Township is and was on said day in said county of 
Beaver, but this contestee denies that in said township the election tlierein was 
not held according to law or that any provision of the election laws of the 
State of Oklahoma were violated in said precinct, or that during said day as 
high as 12 at a time were in the precinct voting booth of said Logan precinct, 
showing each other their ballots or telling each other how to vote, or that 
there were as many as 20 in said polling place at once, and this contestee 
alleges and states that even if the said alleged acts so complained of by said 
contestant did occur, they would not be sufficient to render the election in said 
precinct void, and this contestee alleges and states that even if the said 
alleged irregularities should have occurred, that none of the votes cast therein 
should be thrown out or rejected, for the reason that it is not shown that the 
said alleged irregularities resulted in an actual miscount of the votes of the 
duly qualified electors in said precinct as actually cast, or that tlie said 
alleged irregularities resulted in a failure to express the intent and will of the 
voters in said precinct as between the contestant and this contestee. 

Seventeenth. For tmswer to the statements and allegations of tlie sixteenth 
paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, this contestee denies that in each 
or any of the precincts in Texas County, Okla., tlie election was not held 
according to law, or tliat there were in said county cast illegally 398 votes, or 
any illegal votes, for this contestee, or that in truth or in fact the contestant 
has a plurality over this contestee in said county; and this contestee expressly 
objects to the consideration of said ground of contest for the reason that the 
allegations in said paragraph in reference to said alleged illegal votes are 
vague, indefinite, uncertain, and insufficient as a ground of contest, and this 
contestee asks and demands that the contestant forthwith furnish to this con- 
testee the names and addresses of the alleged 398 voters who, as contestant 
alleges, illegally cast their votes for this contestee, and that the contestant 
forthwith furnish to this contestee a statement of the alleged grounds of ille- 
gality or the reasons for the illegality of said alleged votes. 

Eighteenth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in the 
seventeenth paragraph of said contestant's notice of contest, this contestee de- 
nies that in each and every, or in any, county in said second congressional dis- 
trict of the State of Oklahoma there was practiced, either by this coatestee or 
by anyone in his behalf, as against said contestant, any fraud, intimidation, 
or illegal voting; and this contestee alleges and states that should it be shown 
practiced as alleged. And this contestee specifically denies that any fraud or 
intimidation shown, that they were not enough to change the result in favor 
of the contestee as against said contestant, and this contestee hereby objects 
to the consideration of the allegations contained in said seventeenth paragraph 
of said contestant's notice of contest, for the reasons that the said allegations 
are vague, indefinite, uncertain, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
insufficient as a ground of contest; and this contestee hereby asks and demands 
of the said contestant that he forthwith furnish to this contestee more definite 
information as to the precincts in which, and the names and addresses of the 
persons by whom, said alleged fraud, intimidation, and illegal voting were 
.practiced as alleged. And this contestee specifically denies that any fraud or 
illegality was practiced in any precinct or county in said district in the in- 
terest of this contestee. as alleged in said seventeenth paragraph of contestant's 
notice of contest, and this contestee further alleges and states that in each and 
every precinct, and in each and every county throughout said district, the ma- 
jority of the election officials were members of the same political party as the 
said contestant. 

Nineteenth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in the 
eighteenth paragraph of said contestant's notice of contest, this contestee ad- 
mits that the State election board of the State of Oklahoma did, as heretofore 
■admitted herein, make, execute, deliver, and issue to this contestee a certificate 
4>f election as a Member of the Sixty-third Congress from -the second, congres- 
sional district of the State of Oklahoma; that he has no information as to the 
itruth or falsity of the statements and allegations contained in sti id eighteenth 
paragraph rgarding said alleged protest, and: he therefore denies 
said statements and allegations, and asks and demands that the contestant be 
.placed upon strict proof thereof. And this contestee denies that in so issuing 
«aid certificate of election s,aid State election boards acted in fraud of the 
rights of said contestant; and this contestee hereby objects to the consideration 
lOf the statements and allegations, contained in said^aragraph for,, the -reason 



20 CAKNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

that the same are incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and insufficient ta 
give to the contestant any rights, and this contestee asks and demands that if 
said alleged protest and objection to the issuance of said certificate was in 
writing, said contestant furnish this contestee with a copy thereof, and, if 
verbal, that said contestant inform and advise this contestee of the substance 
and grounds of said alleged protest and objection. 

Twentieth. For answer to the statements and allegations contained in the 
nineteenth paragraph of said contestant's notice of contest, this contestee 
alleges and states that he is not informed as to the truth or falsity of the 
statement in said paragraph to the effect " that in said election in said congres- 
sional district 1,740 negroes voted," and he therefore denies said allegation 
and asks and demands that said contestant be placed upon strict proof of said 
statement and allegation ; and this contestee denies that negroes who had never 
been legally enfranchised voted in said district at said election, and this con- 
testee denies that any precinct election official in said district allowed or per- 
mitted any negroes to vote except such as were qualified to vote under the 
terms, provisions, and requirements of the constitution of the State of Okla- 
homa, and amendments thereto, and under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, 
and were entitled to vote and exercise the right of suffrage in the selection of 
a Member of Congress from the second congressional district of the State of 
Oklahoma, as one of the privileges guaranteed to them by the Constitution 
and laws of the United States. And this contestee alleges and states that all 
negroes who were allowed to vote at said election in said district were quali- 
fied voters of the State of Oklahoma and of the United States of America, and 
this contestee denies that the negro race has never been enfranchised accord- 
ing to law, and this contestee denies that the fourteenth and fifteenth amend- 
ments to the Constitution of the United States of America have never been 
legally adopted, and denies that said amendments were not then, and were not 
at the general election of November 5, 1912. in full force and effect, and 
specifically demands of the said contestant that he be placed upon strict proof 
of said allegations. 



GROSS PETITION. 

And this contestee, Dick T. Morgan, for further reasons and grounds for the 
dismissal of the notice of contest of John J. Carney, contestant herein, and for 
further grounds and reasons for the retention of his office of Representative in 
the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America from the second 
congressional district of the State of Oklahoma, and as further grounds and 
reasons why the said contestant, John J. Carney, is not entitled to maintain 
this contest against the contestee, or entitled to a seat in Congress, this con- 
testee alleges and states : 

First. That at the primary election held in the second congressional district 
of the State of Oklahoma, which said primary election was held in pursuance 
of and under the authority of the laws of the State of Oklahoma, the said 
John J. Carney and one James S. Ross and others were candidates on the 
Democratic Party ticket for the nomination as the Democratic Party candidate 
for Representative in Congress from the second congressional district of the 
State of Oklahoma, and that the names of the said John J. Carney and James S. 
Ross were duly and lawfully placed upon the Democratic ticket prepared, fur- 
nished, and used by the qualified Democratic electors who cast Democratic bal- 
lots at said primary election ; that from all of the counties, parts of counties, 
townships, and precincts included within said second congressional district 
the proper county election boards of the several counties within said congres- 
sional district made due. regular, truthful, and lawful returns to the State 
election board of the State of Oklahoma of the result of said primary election 
between the said Ross and the said Carney, except the county election board of 
Oklahoma County, which said county election board of Oklahoma County made 
due, legal, regular, and truthful returns to the State election board of the State 
of Oklahoma of the result of said primary election between the said Ross and 
the said Carney, except with reference to precinct 6 of ward 1 of Oklahoma 
City, in said Oklahoma County, and the said county election board of Oklahoma 
County, in making the returns and certificate of the result of the said pri- 
mary election between the said Ross and the said Carney and other candidates 
for said Democratic nomination in said precinct 6 of ward 1, falsely, erro- 
neously, and through mistake certified, stated, declared, and made return to the 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 21 

said State election board tliat the said Ross received only 26 votes, when In 
truth and in fact said Ross received in said precinct 6 of ward 1, 76 votes, 
as shown, stated, and declared by the official returns and counter's certificate of 
the duly and lawfully qualified acting precinct election board from said pre- 
cinct 6 in ward 1. 

And this contestee alleges and states that the official returns and the coun- 
ter's certificate in due. lawful, and regular form, which was duly and regularly 
delivered to the county election board of said Oklahoma County by the said 
precinct election officers of said precinct 6 of ward 1, in Oklahoma City. Okla- 
homa County, State of Oklahoma, show, state, and declare that in said pre- 
cinct at said primary election said Ross received 76 votes, and that by the 
books and records required by law to be kept by said county election board, 
showing and stating the number of votes received by each candidate for said 
nomination in the several voting precincts in said county, it is by said books 
and records shown, stated, and declai'ed that in said precinct 6 of ward 1 of 
Oklahoma City, in said county and State, that the said Ross received 76 votes 
in said election ; that the said election board of the State of Oklahoma, in tabu- 
lating, compiling, and reaching a result as to the one receiving the most votes 
in said primary election for said Democratic Party nomination for Congress 
from said district from and on the returns from the different county election 
boards in said district, received and accepted and acted upon the said false, 
erroneous, and mistaken return and certificate received from the county elec- 
tion board of the Oklahoma County, in and upon which it was shown, stated, 
and declared that in said precinct 6 of ward 1, in Oklahoma County, in said 
State, that the said Ross received only 26 votes. 

That the returns from all other counties, parts of counties, precincts, and 
townships included within the said congressional district, as made by the 
different and proper county election boards for the several counties therein, 
are correct and that the nimiber of votes received by the said Ross in said dis- 
trict for said nomination, including only 26 votes in said precinct 6, ward 1. as 
shown and declared thereby, is 3,868 votes ; that the total number of votes re- 
ceived by the said John J. Carney, this contestant, in said district for said 
nomination, as shown and declared thereby, is 3,906 votes, and that in said pri- 
mary election no other candidate for said nomination in said district as shown 
by said returns received more than 3,730 votes. 

' That on or about the 28th day of August, 1912, the county election board of 
Oklahoma County, in said district, transmitted and delivered to the State elec- 
tion board of the State of Oklahoma an amendment to their original return 
and certificate, correcting and making true the aforesaid erroneous and untrue 
return theretofore made by the county election board of said county to the State 
election board of the State of Oklahoma, the result of said election for said 
Democratic Party nomination for Congress between the said Ross, the said 
Carney, and other candidates for said nomination a full and correct copy of 
said amended and corrected return and certificate is hereto attached, marked 
" Exhibit A" for identification, and is hereby made a part hereof as if fully 
set out herein verbatim. 

That in truth and in fact, as shown by the said regular, correct, official, legal, 
and lawful returns of all of the various counties, parts of counties, townships, and 
precincts included within and comprising said congressional district, that the said 
Ross, as a candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for Congressman for 
the second congressional district of the State of Oklahoma, received 3,918 votes, 
and that the said Carney, as said candidate for said nomination for said office, 
received only 3,906 votes, and no more, and that the said Ross received a plu- 
rality of all of the votes cast for candidates for said Democratic nomination for 
Congress in said district ; that by reason thereof the said John J. Carney, con- 
testant herein, was never in fact duly, legally, or lawfully nominated as the 
nominee of the Democratic Party for Congress from the second congressional 
district of the State of Oklahoma, and the said Carney was not, as is alleged 
and stated in paragraph 1 of contestant's notice of contest, at the regular elec- 
tion held in the second Congressional district of the State of Oklahoma, the duly 
and regularly chosen and qualified nominee of the Democratic Party for the 
office of Congressman from the second district of the State of Oklahoma, and 
not being the duly and regularly chosen and qualified nominee said contestant 
is not entitled to maintain this contest and is not entitled to he declared the duly 
elected Member of Congress from the second congressional district of the State 
of Oklahoma, and is not entitled to be awarded a seat as a Member of Con- 
gress from said congressional district. 



22' GAIilSFEY vs. MORGAJsT; 

Exhibit A. 

Oklahoma City, Okla., August 28; 1912. 
Hon. Bek W. Kiley, 

Secretary State Election, Oklahoma City, Okla. 
Dear Sib: In reference to the official returns from Oklahoma County, which 
was certified to you on August 17 date by the Oklahoma County election board, 
we desire to state that there has been a clerical error discovered in the returns 
for Congressman of the second district on the Democratic ticket. 

In precinct 6 of ward 1, Oklahoma City, the precinct election board's returns 
show the following number of votes cast for Congressman in the second district : 
J. J. Carney, 54 ; J. S. Ross, 76 : George W. Cornell, 23 ; R. B. Forrest, 4 ; Dan 
Peery, 20; Ed Ballew, 2; Tom Ballew, 3. 

You will find that the tally sheet which we certified to you shows that J. S. 
Ross received only 26 votes in the above precinct, when, in fact, it should have 
shown him to have received 76 votes in the above precinct. 

We therefore respectfully ask that you make this correction on our tally sheet 
now on file in your office, and oblige. 
Very respectfully. 

The Oklahoma County Election Board, 
Dave Morrow, Chairman. 
E. A. RiNGOLD, Secretary. 

Second. That there was an election held for the office of Representative in 
the Sixty-third session of the Congress of the United States in the second con- 
gressional district of the State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, 1912 ; 
that this contestee, Dick T. Morgan, was the duly and regularly chosen and 
qualified nominee of the Republican Party for said office and his name appeared 
upon the official ballot in said election as the candidate of the said Republican 
Party for said office; that the contestant's name appeared upon the official ballot 
in said election as the candidate of the Democratic Party for said office; that 
Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, was on the day of said election and is now 
in said congressional district; that in. said county in all of the election precincts 
therein due. lawful, regular, and legal election was held on said 5th day of 
November, 1912, and duly, regularly qualified and chosen election officials pre- 
sided thereat in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of Okla- 
homa in force on said day ; that all of the electors and voters who voted in said 
county were legal and qualified voters and all the persons in said county who 
voted at said election and who were negroes were qualified voters and electors 
under the constitution of the State of Oklahon/a and amendments thereto and 
under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and were entitled to vote and exercise 
the right of suffrage in the selection of a Member of Congress from the second 
congressional district of the State of Oklahoma as one of the privileges guar- 
anteed to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States; that after 
the closing of the polls in each, every, and all of the said election precincts the 
votes cast by the qualified electors of said county were duly and legally counted 
by said several precinct election officials in each, every, and all of said precincts 
in said county, and that due, legal, lawful, and regular retiu-ns were made out 
by said precinct election officers and returns were made by said several precinct 
election officers to the duly and regularly chosen, qualified, and acting county 
election board of the said Blaine County by, on, or about the 7th day of 
November, 1912, all of the said acts of the said several precinct election officers 
being in strict compliance with and according to the terms and provisions of 
the laws of the State of Oklahoma applicable thereto. 

That thereupon, and after the said legal, lawful, and regular returns by said 
precinct election boards and officials from each, every, and all of the precincts 
in said Blaine County had been made to and received by the said county elec- 
tion board, the said county election board proceeded to canvass said returns 
and thereupon and after canvassing said returns and tabulating the returns' 
from the said election precincts, the said county election board made entry upon- 
their records showing that the contestant had received a total of 1,198 votes 
ill said county, and that this contestee had received a total of 1.343 votes in 
said county, giving to tills contestee a plurality of 145 votes over the said con- 
testant; that thereafter and before said county election board had made out 
and i-eturned to the State election board of the State of Oklahoma their return- 
showing the votes so received in said county by said contestant and this con- 
testee, and notwithstanding that it then became the duty of said county election 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 



2^^ 



board, under the laws of the State of Oklahoma to make their legale true, and 
correct returns to the State election board of the State of Oklahoma, showing the 
votes so actually received by said, contestant and this contestee. the said county 
election board disbanded, and failed, refused, and neglected to convene again 
until on or about the 13th day of November, 1912. when two of the said county 
election board, D. P. Hogan and T. W. Mosley, said members being the Demo- 
cratic members of said county election board, met and made out and signed 
and sent to the State election board an alleged return, purporting to show that 
ST id contestant had received 841 votes, and this contestee 772 votes; that in said 
alleged return so made by the said two members of said county election board 
to the said State election board, the vote of the said contestant and this contestee 
were, in the following precincts in said county illegally, unlawfully, and fraudu- 
lently entirely omitted, as follows : Cedar Valley Township, of precinct No. 6 ; 
Arapaho Township, or precinct No. 8 ; East Dixon Township, or precinct No. 9 ; 
East Lincoln Township, or precinct No. 10 ; Logan Township, or precinct No. 12 ; 
Flynn Township, or precinct No. 13 ; Watonga Township, or precinct No. 20 ; 
Canton Township, or precinct No. 23 ; West Dixon Township, or precinct No. 28 ; 
Carlton Township, or precinct No. 29 ; East Lincoln Township, or precinct No. 30. 
That in truth and in fact the said action of the said county election board 
in so omitting to make return of the votes so cast in the said precincts was 
illegal, unlawful, fraudulent, unwarranted, and was a neglect of duty on their 
part and a violation of the legal duty of said county election board, under the 
laws of the State of Oklahoma, and the votes cast in said precincts ought to and 
should be counted, and this contestee alleges and states that the ballots in each, 
every, and all of the said voting precincts were all legally delivered by the several 
precinct election boards to the county election board of Blaine County. State of 
Oklahoma, and have since said delivery been safely and securely kept, sealed, 
locked, securely protected and have not been disturbed or tampered with, and 
no opportunity has been given or afforded to anyone to disturb, tamper with, 
change, unseal, or alter said ballots, and said ballots are in all respects in the 
same condition as when diily and legally sealed and deposited in the several 
election boxes by the said several precinct election officials, and the contestee 
hereby notifies the said contestant that upon the hearing of this contest and 
the taking of evidence and proof in support of the allegations and statements 
of this paragraph, this contestee will open said boxes and recount said ballots 
in and of said above-mentioned precincts as between said contestant and this 
contestee ; and this contestee prays that he have an order requesting and requir- 
ing said county election board of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, to securely 
keep said ballot boxes of said precincts until said boxes are opened and 
counted as between said contestant and this contestee ; that the ballots of the 
qualified voters of said precincts Avill show if recounted and the legal returns 
from the said several precincts duly returned by the several precinct election 
boards and precinct ofiicers to the county election board of Blaine County show 
that the said contestant and this contestee received therein the following votes, 
to wit ; 



Township. 


No. 


Carney. 


Morgan. 


Township. 


No. 


Carney. 


Morgan. 


Cedar Valley 


6 
8 
9 

10 
12 
13 
20 


30 
27 
39 
45 
, 52 
13 
48 


39 
47 
31 
39 
80 
22 
89 


Canton 


23 
28 
29 
30 


55 
25 
13 
10 


104. 


Arapaho 




39 


East Dixon 


Carlton 


51 






30 




Total .. 




riynn . . . 




357 


571 















The said contestant in said 11 precincts receiving a total of 357 votes and 
this contestee receiving in said 11 precincts a total of 571 votes, said 11 pre- 
cincts thus giving to this contestee a plurality of 214 votes over said contestant; 
that in all of the other precincts in said county said contestant received 814 
votes and this contestee 772 votes ; that in truth and in fact said contestant 
received in said county 1,198 votes and this contestee received 1,343 votes, and 
this contestee asks and prays that this be declared to be the true result of said 
election in said county as between said contestant and this contestee, and that 
said plurality of 214 votes be added to this contestee's legal majority. 



24 



CAENEY VS. MOKGAN". 



Third. That there was an election held for the office of Representative in Con- 
gress in the sixty-third session of the Congress of the United States of America 
from the second congressional district of the State of Oklahoma on the 5th day 
of November, 1912 ; that this contestee. Dick T. Morgan, was the duly and regu- 
larly chosen and qualified nominee of the Republican Party for said ofiice and 
his nafne appeared upon the official ballot in said election as the candidate of 
the Republican Party for said office, and that said contestant's name appeared 
upon the official ballot in said election as the candidate of the Democratic Party 
for said office ; that Oklahoma County was on the day of said election and 
now is in the said congressional district ; that in all of the election precincts 
therein due lawful, regular, and legal election was held on said 5th day of 
November, 1912; and duly regularly qualified and chosen election officials pre- 
sided thereat in all respects in conformity with the laws of the State of Okla- 
homa in force on said day ; that the precinct election officials in the voting pre- 
cincts as hereinafter set forth pretended to and did return to the county elec- 
tion board of Oklahoma County. State of Oklahoma, their official returns of the 
votes cast in said precincts as between said contestant and this contestee, and 
the duly chosen and qualified county election board of Oklahoma County, State 
of Oklahoma, did thereupon canvass and tabulate said alleged returns from 
the several precinct election boards as between said contestant and this con- 
testee and pretended to and did certify the same to the State election board 
of the State of Oklahoma, upon which said returns the said State election 
board acted in declaring the plurality of this contestee over all other candi- 
dates for said office in said second congressional district to be 663 votes, but 
this contestee alleges and states that error was made, either by the said 
several precinct election boards and officials in the aforesaid returns so made 
by them to the said county election board of Oklahoma County, or, by the 
said county election board of Oklahoma County in the aforesaid returns so 
made by it to the State election board of the State of Oklahoma, and either 
the said returns so made by the said several precinct election boards as afore- 
said to the county election board of Oklahoma County, or the said returns so 
made by the said county election board to the State election board of the State 
of Oklahoma, or both of said returns were and are false, untrue, and incorrect, 
in this, to wit, that the said returns do not truly and correctly set forth or 
state the true number of votes cast by the legally qualified voters of said 
several election precincts as between said contestant and this contestee; that 
the voting precincts where said mistakes occurred, the vote as so returned and 
the true and correct number of votes actually cast in the said several voting 
precincts as between said contestant and this contestee are as follows, to wit : 

Oklahoma Go'unty. 





Vote as returned. 


True and correct 
vote. 




Carney. 


Morgan. 


Carney. 


Morgan. 


Voting precinct, Oklahoma City: 
Ward 1— 


157 
164 
229 
199 

61 
136 
212 
238 
164 
208 

208 
255 
181 
148 
238 
230 
199 
133 


102 
134 
206 
141 

62 
129 
194 
186 
176 
156 

135 
153 
151 
100 
128 
122 
143 
107 


150 
149 
224 
190 

58 
125 
208 
232 
156 
202 

200 
245 
168 
141 
228 
202 
172 
126 


102 


Precinct 2 


134 


Precinct 3 


206 




141 


Ward 2~ 


62 




129 




194 




186 




176 




156 


Ward 3— 


135 




153 




151 




100 




128 




122 




143 


Precinct 10 


107 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 
Oklahoma County — Continued. 



26 



Vote as returned. 



Carney. 



Morgan. 



True and correct 
vote. 



Carney. 



Morgan. 



Voting precinct, Oklahoma City— Continued. 
"W ard 4— 

Precinct 1 

Precinct 2 

Precinct 4 

Precinct 5 

Precinct 6 

Precinct 7 

Boone Township 

Britton TowTiship 

Cass To\\'nship 

Council Grove Township 

Choctaw Township 

Crutcho To-s\Tiship 

Dewey Township 

Deep Fork To^^'nship ; 

Deer Creek To'WTiship 

Edmond Township 

Harrah City Township 

Greeley To"\^Tiship 

Hartzel To\vnship 

Elk City To-\raship 

Duther City Township 

Lincoln Township 

Mustang Township 

Oklahoma A Township 

Oklahoma B Township 

Pottawa tomie TowTiship 

Springer Township 

Spring Creek Township 



144 
206 
68 
124 
116 
76 
42 
66 
22 
90 
41 
97 
35 
47 
64 
44 
30 
81 
59 
S3 
33 
30 
89 
80 
39 
31 
96 
41 



106 

141 
80 
77 
77 
57 
47 
61 
18 
.=i9 
51 

105 
80 

103 
36 
61 
36 
65 
39 
64 
48 
54 
50 
71 
18 
45 

129 
47 



142 

198 
63 
118 
111 
o2 
42 
61 
17 
85 
36 
92 
30 
42 
59 
39 
25 
76 
54 
48 
28 
25 
84 
75 
33 
27 



136 

141 
80 
77 
77 
57 
67 
51 
18 
59 
51 

105 
80 

103 
36 
51 
36 
65 
39 
f4 
48 
54 
50 
71 
18 
45 

129 
47 



and this contestee alleges and states tliat the ballots in each, every, and all of 
the said voting precincts were all legally delivered by the several precinct elec- 
tion boards to the county election board of Oklahoma County, State of Okla- 
homa, and have since said delivery been safely and securely kept, sealed, locked, 
securely protected, and have not been disturbed or tampered with, and no oppor- 
tunity has been given or afforded to anyone to disturb, tamper with, change, 
unseal, or alter said ballots, and said ballots are in all respects in the same 
condition as when duly and legally sealed and deposited, in the several election 
boxes by the said several precinct election officials ; and the contestee hereby 
notifies the said contestant that upon the hearing of this contest and the taking 
of evidence and proof in support of the allegations and statements of this para- 
graph, this contestee will open said boxes and recount said ballots in and of 
said above-mentioned precincts as between said contestant and this contestee; 
and this contestee prays that he have an order requesting and requiring said 
county election board of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, to securely keep 
said ballot boxes of said precincts until said boxes are opened and counted as be- 
tween said contestant and this contestee; and this contestee alleges and states 
that a recount of the ballots in said precincts will show, and this contestee 
alleges and states, that the said contestant received 450 votes less in Oklahoma 
County than the said alleged returns showed, and that this contestee received 
40 votes more in said Oklahoma County than the said alleged returns showed, 
and this contestee is entitled thus to have 490 votes added to his plurality as 
determined by the said State election board of the State of Oklahoma, to wit, 
663 votes; and this contestee asks that the said 490 votes be added to the said 
official plurality in said congressional district. 

Wherefore this contestee prays that the contestant have or obtain no rights 
by' reason of the statements and allegations contained in the said contestant's 
notice of contest ; that the contest of the said contestant be dismissed ; and that 
upon the hearing hereof that there be added to this contestee's legal plurality 
of 663 votes heretofore given him 490 votes from Oklahoma County, 214 votes 
from Blaine County ; that this contestee's legal plurality be declared to be 
1,367 votes; and this contestee further prays that he be declared to be legally, 
lawfully, and rightfully entitled to the office of Representative in the Sixty- 



26 CAKNEY VS. MORGAN. 

third Congress of tlie United States of America from the second congressional 
district of the State of Olilahoma, and for such other and further relief as he 
may in equity and good conscience be entitled, and he will ever thus pray. 

Dick T. Morgan, 

Contestee. 
By Morgan & Deupree, 

His Attorneys. 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE. 

I, John J. Carney, contestant in the above-entitled cause, hereby acknowledge 
service of the above answer and cross petition and the receipt of a true and cor- 
rect copy thereof on this the 13th day of January, 1913. 

John J. Carney, 

Contestant. 
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. 

State of Oklahoma, Oldahoma County, ss: 

Porter H. Morgan, of lawful age, being first duly sworn and on his oath, says 
that on the 13th day of January, 1913, he served upon John J. Carney, con- 
testant in the above-entitled cause, the above and foregoing answer and cross 
petition, and on said day delivered to the said John J. Carney a true and cor- 
rect copy of said answer and cross petition ; and further affiant saith not. 

Porter H. Morgan. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 18th day of April, 1913. 

[seal.] B. O. Young, 

Notary Public in and for OklaJioma County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires August 29, 1915. 



TESTIMONY FOR CONTESTANT. 

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS. 

The said Dick T. Morgan and Porter H. Morgan, liis attorney of record, will 
take notice tliat on Friday, tlie 31st dtiy of Jannary, 1913, tlie said John J. 
Carney, contestant above named, will take the deiX)sitions of sundry witnesses, 
to be used in evidence in the trial of the above cause, at the law office of 
Giddings & Giddings, 1351 West Main Street, Oklahoma City, Okla., before 
Mary S. Hill, a notary public in and for Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 
That the names of the witnesses whose depositions so will be taken are : J. W. 
Sorrels. Oklahoma City, Okla. ; F. L. Clark, Oklahoma City, Okla. ; J. E. Lucas, 
Oklahoma City, Okla. ; Frank Redding, Crutcho Township, Oklahoma County, 
Okla. ; E. A. Wagner, Crutcho Township, Oklahoma County, Okla. ; J. N. Spiers, 
Choctaw Township, Oklahoma County, Okla.; Frank L. Kenyon, Choctaw Town- 
ship, Oklahoma County, Okla. ; W. I. Davis, Dewey Township. Oklahoma 
County, Okla. ; Thomas J. Clark, Dewey Township, Oklahoma County, Okla. ; 
C. E. Burnsworth, Deep Fork Township, Oklahoma County, Okla. ; F. H. Morris, 
Deep Fork Township, Oklahoma County, 0kla. ; E. Needham, Greeley Township, 
Oklahoma County, Okla. ; J. E. Parks, Hartzell Township, Oklahoma County, 
Okla. ; C. B. Jack, clerk, Hartzell Township, Oklahoma County, Okla. ; Louis 
Vorel, Luther Township, Oklahoma County, Okla. ; B. B. Moore, Luther Town- 
ship, Oklahoma County, Okla. ; T. H. Ray, Luther City, Oklahoma County, 
Okla.; H. E. Norman, Luther City, Oklahoma County, Okla.; M. S. Baker, 
Oklahoma A Township, Oklahoma County, Okla. ; H. F. Ballard, Oklahoma A 
Township, Oklahoma County, Okla. ; H. S. Lopp, Springer Township, Oklahoma 
County, Okla. ; W. W. Barker, clerk. Springer Township, Oklahoma County, 
Okla.; W. H. Seller, Spring Creek Township, Oklahoma County, Okla.; R. L. 
West, Spring Creek Township, Oklahoma County, Okla., all of said witnesses 
having heen at the last general election, on November 5, 1912. precinct and 
township election officials within and for Oklahoma County, Okla.; E. A. 
Ringold, secretary of said countj^ election board ; Ben P. Riley, secretary of 
State election board ; and the testimony of such other witnesses as tlie respective 
parties hereto may agree to take at said time and place, the said testimony to 
be taken between the hours of 8 o'clock a. m. and 6 o'clock p. m. of said day, 
and that the taking of the same will be ad.1ourned and conthiued from day to 
day at the same time and place and between the same hours until they are 
completed. 

John J. Carney, 

Contestant. 
By Giddings & Giddings, 

His Attorneys. 

Service of the above notice is hereby acknowledged to have been made on us 
this 25th day of January, A. D. 1913. 

Morgan & Deupree, 

Attorneys for Contestee. 



depositions. 



Depositions of witnesses taken to be used in an action pending in the House 
of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, before Committee on 
Elections, wherein John J. Carney is contestant aiid Dick T. Morgan is con- 
testee, in pursuance of the notice hereto attached, and at the place stated. 
The said John J. Carney appeared on the said 31st day of January, 1913, by 
liis attorneys, Giddings & Giddings, and the said Dick T. Morgan appeared by 

27 



28 CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

his attorney, Porter H. Morgan, and thereupon the taking of said depositions 
was continued and adjourned to tlie 1st day of February, 1913. On the said 
1st day of February, 1913, the said parties to this action appeared by their 
said attorneys, and the talking of said depositions was continued and adjourned 
until the 6th day of February, 1913. On the said 6th day of February, 1913, 
the said contestant and contestee appeared by their respective attorneys, and 
the contestant produced the following witnesses in order, to wit, the said 
testimony being taken in shorthand by J. M. Harkin at the said office of 
Giddings & Giddings, 135-1 West Main Street, Oklahoma City, Okla. : 

State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County. 

Befoi'e Mary S. Hill, a notary public in and for said county and State. 
February 6, 1913, 9 o'clock a. m. Six witnesses sworn by the said notary. 

W. I. DAVIS, called to the stand, testified as follows, to wit: 
Direct examination by Mr. E. J. Giddings : 

Q. You may state your name. — A. W. I. Davis. 

Mr. PoRTEK MoEGAN. Now, Wait a minute, I want to make some formal ob- 
jections. Comes now Dick T. Morgan, contestee herein, by his attorneys, 
Morgan & Deupree, and objects to the taking of any testimony by John J. 
Carney, contestant herein, at this or any other time, or at this or any other 
place, for the following reasons, to wit : 

First. Because the said alleged notice of contest of said contestant and each 
and every paragraph or ground of contest therein set forth under which the 
said contestant John J. Carney is now beginning to take testimony, is and are 
insufficient, vague, indefinite, and uncertain, and does not state or allege facts 
sufficient to constitute a ground or grounds for contest. 

Second. Because the said alleged notice of contest was not served within 
the time allowed by law for so doing, and because the said notice of contest 
was not and has not been up to this present time properly filed with the proper 
and duly authorized offices as required by law. 

Third. Because Mary S. Hill, for whom said contestant is about to take testi- 
mony, is not at this time a duly qualified officer before whom testimony in 
contestant election before the House of Representatives of the United States 
of America may be taken under the laws of the United States relative thereto, 
and is not at this time a qualified and acting notary, she not having received 
a lawful commission to act as a notary and not having filed her bond with such 
with the proper officer. Said bond, if any such has been filed, having never been 
approved by the proper and lawful offices. 

Fourth. Because the notice to take this testimony at this time was not served 
upon the contestee, Dick T. Morgan, within the time allowed by law, and be- 
cause the said notice does not set out or give the place of residence or post-office 
address of this or any other witness named therein whose testimony said con- 
testant now seeks to take. 

Fifth. Because the said alleged notice of contest heretofore attempted to be 
served upon this contestee does not give or set out or specify, and no paragraph 
or ground thereof give or sets out or specifies the grounds upon which sai<i 
contestant relies in said contest. 

Sixth. This contestee hereby objects to the taking of any testimony under the 
fifth paragraph of contestant's alleged notice of contest for the reason that the 
allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, and insufficient 
to constitute a ground of contest and for the reason that the names and ad- 
dresses or voting precincts of the alleged 1,021 negroes referred to therein are not 
set out, and this contestee by reason of said lack of names and addresses having 
been unable to make suitable preparation for the taking of testimony with ref- 
erence to the statements of allegations contained in said paragraph, and this 
contestee hereby asks and demands the said contestant forthwith to furnish 
to this contestee or his attorneys the names and addresses of each, every, and 
all such negroes as referred to in said paragraph 5 of said contestant's notice 
of contest. 

Seventh. This contestee further objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the sixth paragraph of said contestant's alleged notice of contest for the reason 
that the allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, and in- 
sufficient to constitute a ground of contest, and for the reason that the names, 
addresses, and voting precincts of the alleged vast number of negroes referred 
to therein are not set out therein, this contestee by reason of said lack of 



CAEN-EY VS. MOEGAlSr. 29 

names, addresses, and voting precincts having been unable to make suitable 
preparation for the taking of testimony with reference thereto, and this con- 
testee hereby asks and demands of the said contestant that he forthwith furnish 
to this contestee or his attorneys the names, addresses, and voting precincts of 
each, every, and all the said alleged vast number of negroes as referred in said 
paragraph 6 of the said contestant's notice of contest. 

Eighth. This contestee further objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the seventh paragraph of contestant's notice of contest for the reasons that the 
allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, and insufBcient 
to constitute a ground of contest for the reason that the names, addresses, and 
voting precincts of the alleged 700 negroes referred to therein are not set out 
in said alleged contestant's contest, and for the reasons that the names, ad- 
dresses, and voting precincts of the election officials who made an alleged 
amended return referred to therein are not set out, this contestee by reason of 
said lack of names, addresses, voting precincts having been unable to make 
suitable or sufficient preparation for the taking of testimony with reference 
thereto, and this contestee hereby asks and demands that the said contestant 
forthwith furnish to this contestee or his attorneys the names, addresses, and 
voting precincts of each, every, and all the said alleged 700 negroes, and the 
names and addresses of each, every, and all of said precinct election oflicials 
referred to in said paragraph 7 of contestant's notice of contest. 

Ninth. This contestee hereby objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the eighth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, and insufficient 
to constitute a ground of contest, and for the reason that the names, addresses, 
and voting precincts of the alleged 247 negroes referred to therein are not set 
out in said alleged notice of contest, this contestee by reason of said lack of 
names, addresses, and voting precincts having been unable to make suitable 
and sufficient preparation for the taking of testimony with reference thereto, 
and this contestee hereby asks and demands that the said contestant forthwith 
furnish to this contestee or his attorneys the names, addresses, and voting 
precincts of each, every, and all of the said alleged 247 negroes referred to in 
said paragraph 8 of contestant's notice of contest. 

Tenth. This contestee hereby objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the ninth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, and insufficient 
to constitute a ground for contest, for the reason that the names, addresses, 
and voting precincts of the alleged 162 negi'oes referred to therein are not set 
out in said alleged notice of contest, this contestee by reason of said lack of 
names, addresses, and voting precincts having been unable to make suitable and 
sufficient preparations for the taking of testimony with reference thereto, and 
this contestee hereby asks and demands that the said contestant forthwith 
furnish the said contestee or his attorneys the names, addresses, and voting 
precincts of each, every, and all of the said alleged 162 negroes referred to in 
said paragraph 9 of contestant's notice of contest. 

Eleventh. This contestee hereby objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the tenth paragraph of the contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
allegations, therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, and insufficient 
to constitute a ground of contest, and for the reason that the names, addresses, 
and voting precincts of the said alleged 162 negroes referred to therein are not 
set out in said alleged notice of contest, this contestee by reason of said lack 
of names, addresses, and voting precincts having been unable to make suitable 
and sufficient preparation for the talving of testimony with reference thereto, 
and this contestee hereby asks and demands that the said contestant forthwith 
furnish to this contestant or his attorneys the names, addresses, and voting 
precinct of each, every, and all of the said alleged 162 negroes referred to in 
said paragraph 10 of said contestant's notice of contest. 

Twelfth. This contestee hereby objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the eleventh paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, and insufficient 
to constitute a ground of contest, for the reason that the names, addresses, and 
voting precincts of the alleged 144 negroes referred to therein are not set out 
therein, this contestee by reason of said lack of names, addresses, and voting 
precincts having been unable to make suitable and sufficient preparations for 
the tailing of testimony with reference thereto, and this contestee hereby asks 
and demands that the said contestant forthwith furnish to this contestee the 
names, addresses, and voting precincts of each, every, and all of the said 



30 CASNEY VS. MORGAN. 

alleged 144 negroes referred to In said paragraph 11 of said contestant's notice 
of contest. 

Thirteenth. This contestee hereby objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the twelfth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, and insufficient 
to constitute a ground of contest, for the reason that the names, addresses, 
voting precincts of the alleged 81 negroes referred to therein are not set out 
therein, this contestee by reason of the lack of names, addresses, and voting 
precincts having been unable to make suitable and sufficient preparation for the 
taking of testimony with reference thereto, and this contestee hereby asks and 
demands that the said contestant fortlivs^ith furnish to this contestee or his 
attorney the names, addresses, and voting precincts of each, every, and all of 
the said alleged 81 negi'oes referred to in said paragraph 12 of contestant's 
notice of contest. 

Fourteenth. This contestee further objects to the taking of testimony under 
the thirteenth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
statements and allegations therein contained are vague, indefinite, uncertain, 
and insufficient to constitute a ground of contest. 

Fifteenth. This contestee further objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the fourteenth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
statements and allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, 
and are insufficient to constitute a ground of contest. 

Sixteenth. This contestee further objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the fifteenth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
statements and allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, and 
are insufficient to constitute a ground of contest. 

Seventeenth. This contestee further objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the sixteenth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
statements and allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, 
and are insufficient to constitute a ground of contest. 

Eighteenth. This contestee further objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the seventeenth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
statements and allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, 
and are insufficient to constitute a ground of contest. 

Nineteenth. This contestee further objects to the taking of any testimony under 
the eighteeiath paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that the 
statements and allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, indefinite, 
and are insufficient to constitute a ground of contest. 

Twentieth. And this contestee further objects to the taking of any testimony un- 
der the nineteenth paragraph of contestant's notice of contest, for the reason that 
the allegations therein contained are vague, uncertain, and indefinite, and insuffi- 
cient to constitute a ground of contest, and for the reason that the names and 
addresses of the said alleged 1,740 negroes referred to therein are not set out 
therein, this contestee by reason of said lack of names, addresses, and voting 
precinct having been unable to make suitable and sufficient preparation for the 
taking of testimony with reference thereto, and this contestee hereby asks 
and demands that the said contestant forthwith furnish to this contestee or his 
attorneys the names, addresses, and voting precincts of each, every, and all of 
the said alleged 1,740 negroes referred to in said paragraph 19 of contestant'^ 
notice of contest. 

Twenty-first. This contestee further objects to the taking of testimony at this 
time, for the reason that the notice to take evidence was served on contestee's 
attorneys on the 25th day of January, said notice reciting that testimony would 
be taken beginning on Friday, the 31st day of January, 1913, and said day no 
•testimony was taken, and no testimony has been attempted to be taken by the 
said contestant until this the 6th day of February, 1913, when notice to appear 
at this time and place was served the contestee's attorneys by the said contest- 
ant oraly. 

Q. You may state your name. — A. W. I. Davis. 

■ Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. Dewey Township, Oklahoma County. 

Q. How long have you resided there? — A. Twelve years. 

Q. What is your occupation ?— A. Farming. 
: Q. Have you resided there continuously the last 12 years ?^A. Twelve 
-years, . 

Q. At the last general election held in the State of Oklahoma, on the 5th 
day of November, 1912, did you occupy any official position ?--A. I did. 

Q. What was it? — A. The office of inspector of election. ; ■ 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 'Bl 

Q. In what township? — A. Dewey Township. 

Q. Had you occupied a similar position previous to that? — A. The primary— 
the same position in the iirimary election of August 6, I believe. 

Q. Are there any negi-oes there in that precinct? — A. There is. 

Q. Were there at that time — the general election of 1912? — A. There was. 

Mr. GiDDiNGs. Mark these "A" and " B." 

(Marked "A" and "B.") 

Q. Can you approximate about the number of negroes in that township at 
that time over the age of 21? 

Mr. Morgan. Wait just a minute here. Contestee hereby objects to the ques- 
tion, for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, lead- 
ing, and suggestive, and no proper foundation having been laid therefor. 

Q. About how many of them over the age of 21? — A. Over the age of 21 — you 
mean male? 

Q. Yes; male. 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute now. The contestee hereby objects further, for 
the reason the records of the election board would be the best evidence thereto ; 
for the further reason that the question merely is as to the number of negroes 
over the age of 21 years in that voting precinct, and not as the number of 
negroes in said voting precinct over the age of 21 years who voted at said 
election. 

A. No ; I don't know how many male negroes there is in Dewey Township. 

Q. Do you know about how many? 

Mr. Morgan. The same objection as last heretofore stated, with the further 
objection for the reason that the witness has already said that he didn't know. 

A. Well, my best judgment — I would say that there is about 60. 

Q. I hand you Exhibits A and B, and I will ask you if you have ever seen 
them before? 

Mr. Morgan. Now, wait a minute. Comes now the contestee and hereby — I 
withdraw that. 
^ A. Yes ; I have seen this matter before. 

Q. Did you see it previous to the last general election? — A. I did. 

Q. Where? — A. I received it through the mail the day before the elec- 
tion — on Monday before the election on Tuesday. 

Q. Do you know whether or not the other election officials in Dewey Town- 
ship received similar notices? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that, for the reason that the same would be hear- 
say, incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, leading, and suggestive. 

A. They told me they did. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves that the said question and 
answer be stricken from the records, for the reason that the same is hearsay. 
. Mr. Giddings. You can make all those objections at the hearing. 

Mr. Morgan. No ; we have to make them as we go along. 

Q. Who were the other election ofHcials of that precinct? — A. Mr. T. J. Clark 
was clerk of the election and Mr. Ed Fobert was the judge. 

Q. Is there more than one voting box in Dewey Township? — A. No, sir. 

Q. You may state what effect, if any, the receipt of those notices had upon 
you in the enforcing of election laws of the State. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the question until it is 
shown in the record what the said alleged notices are. 

Mr. Giddings. We introduce them in evidence. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and — what is that, the Boardman 
letter and the penitentiary? 

Mr. Giddings. Yes. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and hereby objects to the introduction 
in evidence of said Exhibits A and B, for the reason that said Exhibit B has not 
been shown to have been sent out or sent to this witness with the knowledge or 
connivance of this contestee or that the said contestee connives that, and 
purged or otherwise aided and abetted the sending of said exhibit to said wit- 
ness, and for the further reason that it has not been shown that the said 
letter was written by the said Homer M. Boardman, whose name is shown 
as signed to the said Exhibit B, and for the further reason that it has hot 
■been shown that Exhibit A was placed in the hands of or sent to . the wit- 
.ness with the consent, knowledge, or connivance of the contestee herein, or 
that the contestee aided, abetted, assisted, or sent said Exhibit fe to the said 
witness. - 

A. They made me afraid to enforce the grandfather clause. 



32 CAKNEY VS. MOKGAN. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike tliat as being an 
opinion of tlie witness and a conclusion of tlae witness. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Now, I want you to go aliead and in detail state wliat occurred 
in your precinct on tlie last general election with reference to negro voting; 
just say how many negroes came there and the effect it had. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the question as vague, 
indefinite, and uncertain — multifarious. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Go ahead. 

A. There was about — there was 48 negroes voted in the general election, I 
believe; there was quite a number, but I am not able to state just how many 
that voted by filing with me what they called qualification. And there were 
some that admitted they could not qualify and I told them I would not prevent 
them from voting; that is, I mean to say that there was a few that didn't 
pretend to try to qualify ; there was two that tried to qualify and failed. Then 
I told them — they asked me then for permission to vote — I said I won't tell 
you you shan't vote, but I will tell you what I will do. If you vote I will 
protest your vote and that will be carried to the county attorney, and it will 
be with you and him whether you voted illegally or not, and then I read them 
the law on illegal voting. Those two after quite a while they got up and went 
out. They didn't ask for ballots, but others that came in and filed with me 
what purported to be, as they would consider it, I suppose, a qualification, 
called for ballots and voted. I didn't consider them qualifications, but still 
they claimed — they would claim that they were, and that would be up to the 
court as to whether it was a qualification or not, and therefore I was afraid 
to interfere with them voting. 

Q. Are you a married man? — A. I am. 

Q. Were you at this time? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I hand you Exhibits C and D ; mark them. 

(Marked Exhibits "C" and "D.") 
A. I have more of them if you need them. I didn't bring all of them ; there 
was too big a bunch of them. Those are two that I considered qualifications. 
The others I didn't consider qualifications. 

Q. I will ask you if those are specimens of the handwriting of negroes, 
commonly called colored people, who voted in Dewey Township at the last gen- 
eral election? — A. They are. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. We introduce them in evidence. 

(Hands Exhibits C and D back.) 

Q. If it hadn't been for the receipt of the Exhibit A and Exhibit B would 
you permitted those negroes to have voted? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Wait until I get through — under the laws of this State? 

A. I would not. 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute; wait a minute. Comes now the contestee and 
objects to the question for the reason that the same calls for the opinion and 
conclusion of the witness as to what occurred in his mind, and for the further 
reason that the evidence up to this time shows that the said witness did 
enforce the grandfather clause and the laws of the State of Oklahoma by 
requiring the said negroes to take the test. 

Mr. Giddings. Read the question. 

(Question read.) 

A. I would not. 

Q. Mr. Witness, after you made your original return to the election board 
from the general election of November, 1912, did yoa file with the secretary of 
the election board of Oklahoma County any amended returns? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to question for the reason 
that under the laws of the State of Oklahoma no amended return is required or 
called for or permitted to be made by the inspector of any election precinct in 
the State of Oklahoma. 

A. I filed with the secretary of the election board an affidavit setting forth 
that under the laws of the State there had been illegal voting in that precinct. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the answer of the 
witness or that part of it relating to the contents of the affidavit for the reason 
that his statement is not the best evidence. 

Q. Without the number of illegal votes in that precinct at the last general 
election, could you determine what the result would have been of the vote for 
the candidate for Congress from the second congressional district of Oklahoma, 
to wit, John J. Carney and Dick T. Morgan? 



GAENEY VS. MOEGAIST. 33 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to tlie question for the 
reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and calls for the 
conclusion and opinion of the witness. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. No ; I could not. i 

Q. Could it be ascertained? , 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the same. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Oh, you have in your objection. 

Mr. Morgan. For the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, imma- 
terial, and calls for the conclusion of the witness and the opinion of the witness. 

A. Do you mean by the election board in Dewey Township? , 

Q. Yes. — A. No ; I could not. 

Q. Do you know what were then and there, to wit, at the last election, the 
politics of these negroes? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the question thot the 
same is incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and the witness not having shown 
that he knows the politics of said alleged negroes. For the further reason that 
said alleged negroes had not been cnlled to give evidence relating to their 
political ffBliations in order to enable this witness to testify in regard thereto — ■ 
if he knows. 

Mr. Giddings. He has lived there 12 years. 

A. And how is that? 

Q. If you knew the politics of these negroes who voted there? — A. I do. 

Q. Wha*^ were their politics? 

Mr. Morgan. The same objection as last made to the last question. 

Mr. Giddings. You made your objection. 

A. Republican, politically. 

Q. Wrs there any registration of voters in your township, to wit, Dewey 
Township, previous to the last general -ilection, — A. Registration? 

Q Yes. — A. No: there was no registration. 

Mr. Giddings. Take the witness. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan: 

Q. Mr. Davis, in this Dewey Township election precinct do you know how 
many negroes there are over the age of 21 years, males, in that precinct?^ 
A. I don't know exactly ; no, I don't know exactly. 

Q. Now, Exhibits D and E here — those were some of the tests — those are evi- 
dence of some of the tests that were taken by negroes there in that vo'ing pre- 
cinct? — A. Those were their qualifications that they made at the time they 
came in to vote. 

Q. How many negroes besides Aleck Morgan and Joe Ashford wrote out such 
qualifications before you? — A. I can't tell you exactly to the number, but be- 
tween 45 and 50. 

Q. Now. this 45 or 50 ; they all wro'^e out their qualifications and took the 
test? — A. In wri ing; yes, sir. 

Q. Did you require them to read any part of the constitution? — A. Those that 
wrote, I did. 

Q. Now, you say there were several who came to your voting precinct there — 
came in to the voting place and admitted that they could not vote. — A. That 
they could not qualify unrier the grandfather clause. 

Q. That they could not qualify under the grandfather clause? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, they didn't vote, did *^hey? — A. There was two that presented them- 
selves that attempted to qualify. 

Q. And could not make it? — A. And admi'^ted then that they could not 
make it. 

Q. Now, were there any negroes in that precinct who voted who did not 
qualify by writing some part of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma?-— 
A. Yes. 

Q. How many were there? — A. I believe four. 

Q. Four; what were their names? — ^A. Y. A. Watson was one. 

Q Y. A. Watson ; who were the others? — A. And a school-^^eacher by the 
name of Anderson was another. 

Q. Do you know his initials? — A. No; I don't remember his initials. And a 
school-teacher, I forget his name, that teaches in Dewey Township ; I think it 
is Brice, it seems to me, but I would not be positive. 

Q. Who is the o'her one? — A. A man by the name of Smith; I forget his 
Initials — and the two that attempted, oh ! 

4252— 1.S 3 



WL cars-ey vs. moegait. 

Q. Who were the two that attempted and could not make it, and who did 
wot vote? — K. One was named Morgan and the other McLain. 

Q. What are their initials? — A. Tliose two, and then there was Jones — 
McLain ; I am mixed on that. McLain and Joneft did not try to qualify ; they 
didn't try to read or write. 

Q. Did they vote? — A. They wanted to vote, but while they came in just at 
6 o'clock, under the law I had to close the polls before they had a chance to 
v&te. 

Q. Now, then, who were the two who tried to qualify and failed and who 
didn't vote? Morgan is one of them. — A. Morgan is one and Stafford, I believe, 
is the other. 
Q. What is Morgan's initials? — A. I don't remember Morgan's initials. 
Q. Where did he live ?^A. He lived on section 15. No ; that is not it. Sec- 
tion 14 isn't it. No; it is section 20. Fourteen is south of you, isn't it? That 
is right.. Yes ; it is on section 15, in Dewey Towflship. 

Q. Where does this fellow Stafford live? — A. He lives now on section 13. 
Did live — he has moved since the first of the year. I think that is the Staf- 
ford — that is a Stafford, and I think that is the sanie man, but I would not be 
positive about that. 

Q. You say Morgan and Stafford did not vote? — A. No; they didn't vote. 
Q. They attempted to qualify and could not make it and did not vote? Now, 
Jones and McLean are two negroes who came in too late, and they didn't 
vote? — A. Yes. 

Q. And now there is four who voted without qualifying? Y. A. Watson — 
can he read and write? — A. Yes; he was a justice of the peace. 
Q. Answer the question. — A. Yes. 

Q. Now, W. H. Anderson, the school teacher — can he read and write? — 
A. He was vouched for, and a school-teacher, and he was allowed to vote by 

being vouched for by one of the 

Q. You didn't require him to take the tests? — A. No. 

Q. You didn't require Y. A. Watson to take the tests? — A. Didn't ask them to. 
. Q. Now, as regards Brice, what do you say he does?— A. He was a school- 
teacher. 

Q. You didn't ask him to qualify? — A. No; I didn't. 

Q. J. B. Smith — did you ask him to qualify? — A. Yes; and the clerk of the 
election board vouched for him. I didn't know the man and didn't know 
whether he can read and write; so he vouched for him being able to read and 
write; and he voted. 

Q. You didn't require him to take the tests? — A. No. 

Q. Now, outside of Watson, Anderson, Brice, Smith, whom you allowed to 
vote without making them take the tests, all other negroes who voted on the 
5th day of November, 1912, qualified by passing a test under your direction 
by writing some part of the Constitution? — A. By attempting to write a part 
of the Constitution. 

Q. And tkey did write it to your satisfaction, so that you A. No. 

Q. So that you allowed them to vote? — A. No, sir. 
Mr. GiDDiNGS. Wait a minute; we object to that. 

Q. But you did allow them to vote after thc^y had taken some sort of tests? — 
A. We allowed them to vote. 

Q. All of these others outside of these four they took some sort of test, did 
they, under your direction? — ^A. Yes. 

Q. And then you allowed them to vote? — A. Yes; I allowed them. 
Q. You gave them ballots and allowed them to vote? — ^A. Yes; they went to 
the clerk and got ballots. 

Q. At your A. As I said before 

Q. Wait just a minute ; I want to ask a question. 

Mr. GiDDiNGs. You answer the question just as you want to, Mr. Davis. 
A. Yes; all right. 

Q. They went to the clerk and got their ballots; did you protest against the 
clerk giving them ballots? — A. I did not. 

Q. Did anyone else on the board protest against him giving them ballots? — 
A. They did not. 

Q. And you didn't protest? — A. No. 

Q. Now, concerning the Exhibits A and B here — this letter — copy of this 
letter from Boardman and the Talk it Over With Your Wife circular; did the 
envelope which contained those two circulars bear the return card of Dick T. 
Morgan? — ^A. It didn't bear any return card at all. 



GAEME1[ VS. MOKaAN. 1,5 

Q. It didn't tjear the return card of the Republican congressional committee 
of the second district, did it? — ^A. J^fo, sir. 

Q. It didn't haye the name Morgan on it, or Dick T. Morgan on it any- 
where? — ^A. Had no return card at all on it. 

Q. And there was nothing inside it which contained the name Dick T. Morgan 
or the Republican congressional committee of the second district of the State of 
Oklahoma which would lead you to believe that it came from Dick T. Morgan 
or at his direction? — ^A. Nothing that would lead me to believe it capae from 
Morgan ; no. 

Q. And you didn't consider that Morgan was threatening you with any prose- 
cution if 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Wait a minute. 

Q. If you enforced the grandfather clause? — A. No; Morgan didn't come 
into my mind at the time I received the communication. 

Q. Or at any time during the day? — A. During the election — that I remember 
ill connection with this letter. 

Mr. Morgan. I think that is all. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Answer the question as you want to. 

A. But the fact that there was a United States attorney's name to this and 
that two men had been prosecuted in Oklahoma and convicted f»r attempting 
to enforce this law was the reason why I let men vote there who I did not 
consider had given me the proper qualification. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike that part of the 
witness's answer relating to the signature on Exhibit B, and the reason why 
he allowed persons to vote whom he did not consider as qualified to vote for 
the reason that the same is not in response to the question propounded to the 
witness and entirely voluntary upon his iiarl and for the further reason that 
same is a conclusion and opinion of the witness. 

Mr. Giddings. Is that all? 

Mr. Morgan. Yes. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. You did know that this letter of Boardman's stated that he was purely 
passing upon the matter from a Federal question standpoint, didn't he? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute; we object to that for the reason that the exhibit 
is the best evidence. 

Q. You knew that this letter had not come from the Democratic State Com- 
mittee or from John J. Carney, didn't you? 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute ; we object to that for the reason that the wit- 
ness has not shown himself competent to testify in relation thereto and for 
the further reason that he has already testified that he could not tell from 
whom it came. 

A. No ; I didn't believe it came from Democratic headquarters or Judge 
Carney either. 

Q. Mr. Witness, you were asked if the clerk out there and the other election 
ofiicials protested against giving these negroes ballots. I want to ask you if 
you don't know as a matter of fact the reason that they didn't protest was on 
account of these very circulars. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that for the reason that the same calls for hearsay 
and opinion and conclusion of the witness. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. That is the reason I didn't protest. 

Q. Don't you know, as a matter of fact, that is the reason the other Demo- 
cratic members of that precinct election board did not protest? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee objects to that for the reason that the same is hear- 
say or calls for an answer which would be hearsay and for the further reason 
that it calls for v.n opinion and conclusion of the witness and is not the best 
evidence. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. How was that question? 

Q. To the best of your knowledge. Read the question. 

(Question read.) 

A. To the best of my knowledge, I believe that is the reason. 

Q. Have you ever served as an election official previous to the last primary? 

Mr. aioRGAN. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. I never had. 

Q. What was the mood of these negroes when they came to the polls that 
day? 



'36 CAENEY vs. MOROAN. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as cnlling for an opinion and a conclusion. 

Q. Were they in a sullen and angry mood or like the ordinary voter? — A. 
They showed a disposition to be considerably wrought up over the fact that 
they thought that the grandfather clause, as it is termed, was being pushed 
on them illegally and that they was being discriminated against. Some of 
them WAS sullen and wrought up consirlerable. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the answer as 
being an opinion and conclusion of the witness and for the further reason that 
the same is not redirect examination. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. That is all ; take the witness. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Davis, state what, if anything, you saw which led you to believe 
that these negroes were wrought up. — A. One of them wrote my name — took 
my name and address — right in my presence, and said something to another 
negro. I didn't exactly understand all he said, but part of it was that we 
see about this matter. 

Q. Did they threaten you with any physical harm? — A. No; I wasn't 
threatened to my face — not personally. 

Q. Now, this occasion when this negro took your name — had you just turned 
down any negro then for failure to read and write — failure to go through the 
tests? — A. No; no: I hadn't refused any negroes to vote, the right to vote at all. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. What did you do with the ballot stubs of that election? — A. They went 
with the ballot book. 

Q. To whom? — A. To the county election board. Oh, you mean those 

Q. The ballot stubs. 

Mr. Morgan. Put him back on the stand. 

Mr. Giddings. He is on the stand; he is under oath — the ballot stubs of the 
ballots voted. 

A. With the names and address written of the electors? 

Q. Yes. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. They was returned to the county election board w'th the other returns. 

Q. How did you return them? Did you put them in the ballot box. or what 
did you do with them? — A. We just folded them up. sealed them in an envelope, 
put them in the ballot box, and locked them up — sealed them in an envelope, 
put in the ballot box and locked it up, and returned it to the county election 
board. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Mr. T. J. CLARK, being called to the stand, testified as follows, to wit: 
Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. You may state your name. — A. Clark — T. J. Clark. 

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Clark? — A. I live in Dewey Township. 

Q. What is your business? — A. Farmer. 

Q. Are you a married man? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. How long have you been married? — A. How long have I been what? 

Q. Married — A. About .32 years. 

Q. How long have you lived in Dewey Township? — A. I came there 15 years 
the 2d day of February. 

Q. Did you hold any official position in the last general election held within 
the State of Oklahoma on November 5, 1912? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What position was it? — A. I was clerk of the elec ion board. 

Q. Had you ever held that or a similar position before? — A. Not here; I was 
inspector here before. 

Q. In the same township? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When? — A. Two years ago last election; two years. 

Q. At the election two years ago did you or any of the other election officials 
get any warning letters or circulars? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that. 

Q. As to what would be done with you if in the event you enforced the 
grandfather laws of the State? 



CABNET VS. MORGAN. * 37 

, Mr. tMoBGAN. We object to tMt for the reason that the same is incompetent, 
irrelevant, immaterial, and for the further reason that there was allegations 
in the contestant's notice of contest with respect to any warning circular or any- 
let er sent to any election official or to this election official two years ago-^in 
the election in 1910. 

Q. Answer the question?— A. I don't understand it. 

(Question read.) 

A. I didn't get no letters. 

Q. Did you receive any at the last general election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I hand you some contestant's Exhibit A and contestant's Exhibit B, and 
I will ask you if you received similar circulars to the ones now in your hands? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the same for the reason 
that there has been no showing that the contestee herein, Dick T. Morgan, had 
anything to do with the placing of said alleged circulars in the hands of the 
witness if they were so placed, or that Dick T. Morgan, the contestee herein, 
or anyone acting for or by him sent said alleged circulars similar to the one 
now ill the witness's hands *^o the witness, or that the campaign committee 
conducting the campaign of the said contestee, Dick T. Morgan, sent any such 
letter or paper or circular to the witness. 

Mr. GiDDiNGs. The contestant contends it is the law that regardless of 
whether or not the said exhibits were sent to the election officials of this con- 
gressional district by the contestee ; that if the sending of them accrued to the 
benefit of the contestee he is not in a position to complain. Read the question. 

(Ques ion read.) 

A. I did. 

Q. What effect, if any, did they have upon you in the enforcement of wliat is 
called or commonly termed the grandfather clause of the State? 

Mr. Morgan. Is this gentleman the Clark that was counter or clerk? 

A. Clerk. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objec*^s to the question for the 
reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, calls for a 
conclusion and opinion of the witness, and for the further reason that under 
the laws of the State of Oklahoma the witness who has tes'ifled that he acted 
as clerk of the election board of Dewey Township precinct, Oklahoma County, 
is not authorized to enforce or to not enforce the so-called grandfather clause, 
it being the duty of the inspec''or, under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, to 
pass upon the qualifications of the voters presenting themselves to vote in the 
said precinct. 

A. No; I didn't have anj-thing to do in the enforcement, 'out I was afraid 
that we would have trouble. We didn't only get them notices, but we got 
other — I got other notices that there would be trouble there. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike from the testi- 
mony an answer of the witness that part of his testimony relating to other 
notices, for the reason that the same is uncalled for by the question asked the 
witness. 

Q. What were those other notices? — A. The night before election one of the 
counters came to me and told me — he said, " T wish I could get off this board ; 
there is going to be trouble there to-morrow." 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the latter answer 
of the witness relative to any other letters or warnings or talks had, for the 
reason that there are no allegations in the contestant's notice of contest with 
reference to any such warnings or talks or circulars. 

Q. Did you fear trouble there the next day? — ^A. Yes. 

Mr. Morgan. Wiiit; we object to the question and move to strike the answer, 
for the reason that the same is a conclusion and opinion of the witness. 

Q. What were your duties in reference to handing the voters the ballots and 
things of that sort? — A. When they came there and called for l)allot I just give 
them a ballot. 

Q. You heard the question asked the previous witness on the stand as to 
whether or not any of you election officials protested against handing these 
negroes ballots, did you not? — A. Y'es; I heard it. 

Q. Why didn't you protest against handing them ballots? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee objects for the reason that same calls for the con- 
clusion of the witness, and for the further reason that it is not the duty of the 
clerk of any election board to protest against any ballots being cast, that 
duty being given under the laws of the State of Oklahoma to the inspector in 
each precinct. 



SB CARNEY VS. MORCfAW. 

A. I (iidia't think it was — that I had" any right to lamder the l^aw, and then 
I was pretty busy most of the time, anyho^w. 

Q. Did the receipt of these warnings have any effect upon you in that re^ 
speet?^ — A. It possibly did. 

Q. Do you know how many negroes over the age of 21 years — male negroes — 
resided and had resided in that township for over a year previous' to the last 
election ? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason that the question in issue is not the 
number of negroes who resided in said township, but the question is as — under 
the pleadings in this contest case — is the number of negroes who voted. 

Q. Answer the question — about? — A. No; I could not say just how many. 

Q. What is your best judgment of the number? 

Mr. Morgan. The same objection as last heretofore given. 

A. That man that polled the township two years ago told me there was 88. 

Q'. Not what you were told. 

Mr. Morgan. We move to strike that for the reason that the same is not re- 
sponsive and is hearsay. 

Q. What is your ))est judgment? — ^A. There is probably somewhere between 
55 and 60 I should think. 

Q. Do you know the politics of those negroes who voted in Dewey Township 
at the last general election? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the question for the 
reason that the same calls for the conclusion of the witness and his opinion 
and further reason tliat the said voters or negroes referred to have not been 
first called upon the fitand and refused to testify regarding their politics. 

A. I could not positively say. I know all that I do know I know what their 
politics is; all that I am personally acquainted with. 

Q. What are their politics? 

Mr. Morgan. We move to strike the answer as not resiJonsive to the question. 

A. They are Republican. 

Q. Do you know of any negro out there who voted the Democratic ticket at 
the last election? — A. I do not. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. You maj take the witness. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Clark, regarding this warning, this circular. Exhibits A and B, those 
came to you in an envelope, did they, through the United States mail? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was there any return card upon that envelope that you remember? — 
A. I don't remember ; I could not say. 

Q. Was there anything in the envelope or on the outside thereof which indi- 
cated that Dick T. Morgan, the contestee herein, or his campaign committee or 
Homer N. Boardman had sent this to you? — A. All there was was the name 
that was on the letter — the circular — is all I know. 

Q. Read him the question. 

(Question read.) 

A. I could not say ; there was nothing of Dick T. Morgan's name on there, 
I am satisfied of that; but I think that Boardman's n.nme was on it, 

Q. Mr. Boardman's name was signed down here at the bottom?- — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Or printed rather? — A. I think it was. 

Q. Homer N. Boardman's return card was not on the outside of the enve- 
lope? — A. I could not say; I tried to find that envelope yesterday and I could 
not find it. and I would not say positively it was or was not. 

Q. You snw Mr. Davis testing these negroes, did you? — ^A. Some of them. 

Q. You were in the same room? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he was testifying correctly when he said he tested about 40 negroes 
there? 

Mr. Giddings. We object to that as calling for a conclusion of the witness. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. I think Mr. Davis did not just understand that 
question, or else I have got it wrong. I don't think Mr. Davis tested any of 
the negroes that day that he tested at the primary election; that is that he 
passed on at the primary election, except a few. That was my judgment; 
now I would not say positively, but that was my judgment of the way the thing 
was done. 

Q. In other words your remembrance of it is. — ^A. I was pretty busy, and 
didn't have much time. 



CAEISrEY VS. MOBGAK. * 3Sfi 

Q. In other words, your remembrance of it is that Mr. Davis, passed thiese 
without testing whom he had tested in the last primary? — ^A. That isBigR 
judgment. I vouched for some myself, and he didn't test them I know. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Y. A. Watson? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. AVas he tested? — A. No, sir; I vouched for him, 

Q. You vouched for him; you know that he can read and write? — A. I do, 

Q. And W. H. Anderson? — ^A. I didn't for him. 

Q. Do you know Mr. Anderson? — A. I know him when I see him. 

Q. He is a school-teacher out there? — ^A. I have heard he was; but I doa't 
know it. 

Q. This Mr. Brice. what are his initials? — -A. I don't know him at all. 

Q. Do you know J. B. Smith? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can J. B. Smith read and write? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You vouched for him ? — A. Yes, sir ; if you will let me explain this, I eaa 
do it so you will understand what I mean. Davis told me anybody that we 
knew was all right— there was no use in putting them to the test — and he sa:?» 
anybody that you know is all right, and you let me know — they will go. It wil4 
hurry things: we want everybody to vote. 

Q. Do you remember this man Jones and this man McLain, who came up- tQOi 
late to vote? — A. I remember Jones; I don't know McLain. 

Q. Now Morgan and Stafford, witli respect to whom Mr. Davis testified, eajne 
and took the test, and failed to pass it; and he refused to let them vote; you 
remember that occurrence? — A. No; I don't. 

Q. You don't remember that? — ^A. No; I was busy. 

Q. How many negroes is it you remember voted there during the day? — 
A. Well, I could not say. Pretty near every time I looked up there was one 
in front of me ; they came thick and fast. 

Q. Do you know Aleck Morgan and Joe Ashford? — A. I know Ashford;. 1 
know several Morgans, but I don't know all their first names. 

Q. How many voted out there on the 5th day of November, 1912? — A. ] 
could not say. 

Q. You don't know the total number of votes? — A. The total number of 
votes — I would not want to swear that I did. 

Q. Do you know of any negro who voted there w-ho either was passed be- 
cause you or some one there knew that he could read and write or who really 
took the tests and \vas allowed to vote by Mr. Davis: in other words, do you 
know of any negro v.'lio took the test and who failed and who was allowe<i to 
vote? — A. Well, I could not say. 

Q. How is that? — \. 1 would have to explain it to tell you all I know- 
about it. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Go ahead and exxilain it. 

Q. I am asking you — were there any negroes there who voted ou that day 
who can't read and v^'rite that you know of. and if so give their names. — A. I 
know lots of them who can't read their own writing after they write it. 

Q. I am asking you ; read the question. 

(Question read.) 

A. I would not; I don't know as I could give their names. 

Q. Do you know of any? — ^A. I didn't know 

Q. You don't know of any? — A. I know there was lots that I would not pass; 
when I was insiDector I didn't pass them. 

Q. But all you voted there you either know that they could read and write 
or they pass some sort of a test that day? — A. I guess so. 

Q. That is right, isn't it? — A. I think they did. 

Q. Now, on last Wednesday — is this Thursday — a week ago yesterday were 
you at Fobert's store out there in Dewey Township in the morning? — A. Mr. 
Fobert's? 

Q. No. Mr. Delaporte's store? — A. Yes, sir; some day I was there; I was 
probably there that day: I was there one day: I saw you there. 

Q. Aiid didn't you tell Bill McCutchen that there was nobody out there voted 
except who was qualified to vote? — ^A. No, sir; I didn't. 

Q. You talk about this election with him, didn't you? — A. No, sir; I did not. 

Q. I think that is true. — A. Bill McCutchen has been in the habit of trying 
to hoodoo me; came down and was going to take me out of the schoolhouse 
when I was inspector there. 

Mr. Morgan. We move to strike the voluntary statement of the witness. as 
not being responsive to any question asked or explanatory to any question 
asked. 



40 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

'- Q. Did they have some sort of table over there where Mr. Davis tested these 
n'dgroes? — A. I thinlv on the deslvs; it was in the schoolhonse. 

Q. Now. you noticed negroes over there writing and trying to copy the Con- 
stitution, didn't you? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. And copying it and handing in their papers to Mr. Davis? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And he passing on them? — A. When I had time to notice anything I did. 

Q. What was the usual custom there; would he tell you to let so-and-so 
vote or what? — ^A. The custom was that they came in there — I was about 
probably 20 feet from where he was, 25 maybe, and he was near the door and 
I was in the back t;nd of the schoolhonse — and they would come in and set 
down at the table or desk and when he got — we were trying to keep the things 
going so they would all vote and when they all got a ballot I could see they 
would let some in from the outside and keep them voting right along, and 1 
was pretty busy and I dcr.'t know what they were doing all the time. 

Q. When a negro came to you for a ballot, Mr. Davis would tell you they had 
Jiassed the tests? — A. When they came up there he didn't tell me nothing. I 
gave them a ballot. I supposed when they came there they was all right. 

Q. You testified you didn't know of any negro voting the Democratic ticket ; 
flo you know of any negro who voted the Republican ticket for certain ? — ^A. 
Nothing only vrhat they tell me themselves. 
' Mr. Morgan. I think that is all. 

Re-direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. Who is Bill McCntchen ?— A. He is a druggist at Luther. 

Q. Active in Republican politics out there? — -A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long has he been active out there? — A. Ever since I knew him. 

Q. Trying at times to intimidate the election officials from enforcement of 
the grandfather clause? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to it as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and for 
the further reason that there is no statements or allegations contained in the 
contestant's notice of contest regarding the said Bill McCutchen or his activities 
in regard to the alleged enforcement of the grandfather clause. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. What is the question? 

Q. Read it. 
. (Question read). 

A. He did me. ' 

Mr. Morgan. We move to strike that for the reason that the time and place 
is not shown and it not being shown that the alleged intimidation occurred at 
the last election held on November 5, 1912. 

Q. Was he a candidate out there at that time? — A. No, sir. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Clark, as a matter of fact, last Wednesday morning you and Mc- 
Cutchen didn't talk about politics at all? — ^A. No, s;r. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Mr. Giddings. Then do you know why you were asked about your having done 
so?— A. No. 

Q. Mr. Morgan knew that you hadn't talked politics out there? — A. I could 
not tell whether he knew it or not. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Whereupon, by consent of parties, further hearing of this case ad.iourned 
until 2 p. m. 

February 6, 1913, 2 p. m., hearing resumed. 

LOUIS VOREL, called to the stand, testified as follows, to wit: 
Direct examination by Mr. Dortch : 

Q. State your name. — A. Louis Vorel. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the taking of further 
testimony unless the same shall be written out in the presence of the officer 
talking the same in the presence of the parties or their agents. 
• Q. Where do you live, Mr. Vorel? — A. In Luther Township. 

Q. Oklahoma County? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State of Oklahoma? — A. Yes, sir. 
■ Q. How long have you lived there? — A. About 17 years, or a little over 17 
years. 

Q. How old are you, Mr. Vorel? — A. Sixty years old. 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN". 41 

Q. Are you married?— A. Yes, sir. 
' Q. Do you have any children? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you live in Luther Township in November, 1912?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What officifil position, if any, did you hold during the election of 1912? — 
A. Why, I was inspector. 

Mr. MoKGAN. Wait a minute. Comes now the contestee and objects to the 
further taking of testimony unless the same, together with the questions pro- 
pounded by the parties or their agents be reduced to writing in the presence of 
the witness and in the presence of the agents or attorneys of the parties and 
duly attested by the witness at the time. 

Mr. DoETCii. I will have to send for a typewriter. 

And thereupon the succeeding testimony was taken on the typewriter direct, 
as follows, to wit : 

Q. Inspector where? — ^A. Inspector of elections of Luther Township, Okla- 
homa County. 

Q. Who were the other election officials of that precinct? — A. Mr. Glen 
Moore and Will Arthur. 

Q. Approximately state how many negroes there are in your precinct, male, 
over the age of 21 years, if you know? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee objects to the question for the reason that the same 
is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Well, the way I have of knowing is from the way they turn out at elec- 
tions, and there is about two-thirds negroes in our tovniship ; of voters we have 
right near 120 negroes and sixty odd whites. 

Q. How many of these negroes presented themselves in November. 1912, at 
the election to vote, if you know? — A. Why, I think right near the number 1 
have stated, 120, as near as I remember it. 

Q. I will hand you contestants Exhibits A and B and ask if you have ever 
seen similar ones? 

Mr. Morgan. The contestee objects to the question for the reason that the 
same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial ; it not having been shown 
that this contestee wrote either personally or bj' any of his agents said exhibits 
or had said exhibit sent — any exhibit or similar paper to the witness, and for 
the further reason that the said exhibit has not been shown to have been 
written by Homer H. Boardman or by anyone by his authority. 

A. This first one was handed to us on the grounds by a party 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the answer for 
the reason that it is not shown that this contestee or anyone for him or by his 
authority handed said witness a paper similar to Exhibit A. 

Q. Do you know who handed you this? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was it? — A. Thomas McNeal. 

Q. Who was he? — A. He is a farmer living around there. 

Q. What was his politics? — A. A Republican. 

Mr. Morgan. Wait. Comes now the contestee and objects to the question and 
moves to strike the question and answer from the records for the reason that 
the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

Q. Was he or not on that day working for the interests of the Republican 
candidates? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he represent himself to be working in the interest of any particular 
Republican candidate? 

Mr. INIoRGAN. Contestee objects to the question for the reason that the same 
is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and an attempt to prove agency by 
the testimony of the agent, and as being hearsay. 

A. No; I believe he was just working for general results. 

Q. I will rehand you contestants Exhibit B and ask you have you ever seen 
a similar circular? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee objects to the question for the reason that the same 
is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for the reason that it has not 
been shown that the circular or exhibit handed to the witness, being contestant's 
Exhibit B was composed by, printed by, or sent out by the contestee or by any- 
one acting for him or under his authority ; and the contestee at this time 
moves to strike from the record all of the testimony of the witness regarding 
the handing of Exhibit A to him by Tom McNeill, for the reason that the wit- 
ness has not testified and it has not been shown that the said McNeill was the 
agent of or acting under the authority of this contestee. 



42 CAENEY VS. MOBGAJSr. 

A. Why, I didn't receive this — it was after the election — ^In the mall. 

Q. When McNeill handed you circular marked headed. " Talk it over with 
your wife," did you read this circular? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee objects to the question and moves to strike the ques- 
tion and answer for reason same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What effect, if any, did it have upon you? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee objects to question for reason the same calls for an 
opinion and a conclusion of witness, and as being incompetent, irrelevant, and 
immaterial. 

Q. I mean in the performance of your official duties? 

Mr. Morgan. Same objection as to the last question. 

A. Well, I didn't like to take the responsibility on the face of that and we 
handled the election in a different way from what we would have if that hadn't 
come up. 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee moves to strike the answer as not responsive to the 
question. 

Q. In what way did you handle it different? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as being incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. We let 14 or 15 negro voters cast their ballots on their own responsibility 
that we would have denied, they claiming and not being able to read and 
write. 

Q. How many negroes, if you remember, did you give the tests to that day? — 
A. Well, not very many; not over 10 or 15, outside of these. We had been 
acquainted with those parties and they had been refused ballots at previous 
elections two years before. 

Q. You knew then from previous acquaintance that they could not take the 
tests? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now contestee and moves to strike the question and 
answer for the reason that the so-called grandfather clause requires a test. 

Q. They had been tested had they at a previous election? — A. Yes, sir; and 
also at this one. 

Q. What was the results of the previous tests? — A. Well, on the question 
whether they could read and write, some of them said they couldn't, and them 
that claimed they could we tested and the others found out they couldn't by 
actual test. 

Q. These 14 or 15 that you speak of, did they cast ballots in November, 1912, 
election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What did you do with the stubs from your ballot books? — A. Well, we 
fixed them up like they always give them to us as nearly as we could, sealed 
them, locked them up, and turned them over to the county election board. 

Q. Can you tell what the result of the election would have been in that pre- 
cinct had these negroes you speak of not been allowed to vote? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee objects to question for reason that same is incom- 
petent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and as calling for conclusion of the witness. 

A. I believe so. 

Q. What did you do with the returns from that election? — A. We turned them 
over to the county election board— part of them unsigned, that is by me, by the 
inspector. 

Q. Did you refuse to sign part of them?— A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What was the reason of your refusal? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 
A. I thought they was illegal. 

Q. Referring back, Mr. Vorel, to contestant's Exhibit A, I will ask you about 
how many of these circulars you saw that day. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not hav- 
ing been shown that Exhibit A or circulars similar thereto were composed by, 
sent out by, or mailed by the contestee, or by anyone for him, as his agent or 
in his behalf. 

A. I think it was only that one. 
Mr. DoRTCH. That is all. 

By Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Now. Mr. Vorel, you claim that there were how many negroes voted who 
were not qualified to vote? — A. Fourteen or fifteen. 

Q. Did you apply the tests to these 14 or 15 negroes?— A. I asked every one 
of them quertions could they read or write, and they answered me in the 
negative. 



Q. Now, what are the names of those 14 oir 15 negroes, and where do they 
live? — ^A. I could name two only, hut the elerk has a list of them. 

Q. What are the names and addresses of those two? — A. The address is 
Luther in both eases, and Greenhoward is one of them, and the other is Frank- 
lin. He lives in Luther. 

Q. Now, where does Greenhoward live from Luther?^ — A. He lives about 1 
mile north and 2 miles east. 

Q. What are Greenhoward's initials? — A. 1 believe you have got me there, 
but I believe it is W. G. or G. W. I would not be positive. 

Q. What are Franklin's initials? — A. I don't know. 

Q. What does he do? — A. He is an old pensioner — an old soldier— and doesn't 
do nothing that I know of. 

Q. Mr. Vorel, take a little time and see if you can remember the names of 
the remainder of these 14 or 15 negroes. — A. That would be a task for me. 
I could go to the records, or the returns, and Mr. Moore, the clerk of the elec- 
tion he has the names — put them down — thought something might come up 
and he took a record of them. 

Q. You say you tested and gave the tests prescribed by the grandfather 
clause to 10 or 15 negroes; is that right?^ — A. Outside of these 15 already men- 
tioned ; yes. 

Q. Now, how did these 10 or 15 come out on their tests? — A. Very near all 
qualified. 

Q. How many did qualify? — A. Well, sir, I don't know. I am ready to say 
that all of them. 

Q. Now, there were 10 to whom you gave the tests there and they qualified, 
or 15 was it? — ^A. Yes. sir. 

Q. And then there were, you say, 120 negroes voted? — A. About that many; 
yes, sir. 

Q. So there were 90 that voted without any tests who were qualified? — ^A. I 
think so; yes; as nearly as I remember. People that had been recommended in 
previous elections and voted, and some that we knew personally. 

Q. So to get at the number of qualified voters in the precinct you would 
merely deduct the 14 or 15 whom you say were not qualified, that would give 
the result of the A'ote as between the candidates, if these had not voted? — 
A. Under the system that we have been working under, being hampered every 
election with the fear of Federal law 

Q. Now, wait just a minute — contestee moves to strike that part of the 
witness's answer — that is, all of it — for the reason that the same is not respon- 
sive. Please read the question to the witness. 

Mr. DoRTCH. Now, contestant insists that the witness answer the question 
in his own way, and then if immaterial that motion to strike be made. Go 
ahead. 

A. State my last answer. 

(Question and answer read.) 

A. Well, under that it isn't hardly a fair test; there would be a great deal 
less number of voters if a real test could be gotten. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the last answer 
of the witness for reason same is not responsive, and the contestee will ask 
the stenographer to reread the last question to the witness, and the contestee 
asks the witness to answer the question. 

Mr. DoRTCH. The contestant protests against the putting of a question, and 
then because he is not satisfied with the answer asks that the same be stricken, 

(Question i-ead.) 

A. Under the present system that would be all we could do. 

Q. Now, Mr. Vorel, notwithstanding the fact that a paper similar to that 
heretofore in evidence as contestant's Exhibit A, you went ahead and tested 10 
or 15 negroes in accordance with the grandfather clause; is that right? — ^A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. And these 90 negroes whom you didn't test, you didn't test them because 
you say you knew from previous experience or from your information of them 
that they could pass the test? — A. They had been voters before. 

Q. That is right, is it not?— A. Yes. 

Q. Do you know Frank Mayer — negro? — A. I don't think I do. I know 
them, but I don't know their names very much. 

Q. Do you know whether he voted that day or not? — A. No; I do not. 

Q. Do you know Emanual Moore? — A. Yes. 



44 cakney Vs. m:orga]!^. 

' Q; Where does he live?-^A. ^hat is the fellow that takes the pension from 
county aid. they presented him hnd tried to get him voted, of course we could 
not stand that, that was too much. 
- Q. Then you turned him down, did ybu?— A. Yes, sir; him being a pauper. 

Q. Pauper. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know Will Davis? — A. Will Davis? Well perhaps I do, you won't 
get much out of me on those names, I am hard at remembering the names on 
those parties, I haven't been clerk of the elections, and I can't answer to the 
names. I don't remember their names. 

Q. So you don't know Will Davis? — A. No; I will have to say no. 

Q. Do you know Tom Franklin? — A. Yes. 

Q. Where does he live? — A. He lives in Luther; it is the Franklin we were 
speaking of. 

Q. He lives in Luther? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say you let him vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did i*^ come that he living in Luther city you allowed him to vote in 
Luther Township? — ^A. He doesn't live in the incorporated part of town; he 
lives outside of the city limits and votes in the township. 

Q. He was turned down, you say — Tom Franklin? — A. We asked him if he 
could qualify, and he said no*^, but he insisted on voting, and he did vote. 

Q. Do you know A. Garre't? — A. What is he, a white man? 

Q. A negro. — A. If you want to save time I told you not to ask me the names, 
because I don't know many by names. 

Q. Do yon know Martin Benjamin? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he vote? — A. Yes, sir: he was one of the 14 or 15. 

Q. Did you know that he could not qualify under the tests? — ^A. Yes; most 
assuredly; he told us he couldn't. 

Q. And he voted? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, did you not talk with J. M. Morgan, a merchant at Luther, either 
the day after, or second day after, the election about the manner of conducting 
the election ou^ here in Luther Township? 

Mr. DoRTCH. We ob.iect to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. I suppose I have ; yes, we had several talks, and several days following. 

Q. Is it not a fact that on one occasion you told Mr. Morgan that not to 
exceed five negroes had voted in Luther Township who were not qualified to 
vote? 

Mr. DoETCH. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
assuming a state of facts not proven. 

A. Mr. Morgan certainly misunderstood me: I never made no such statement. 

Q. Now, as a matter of fact, Mr. Vorel. did you not write on *^he ballots of 
all negroes whom you considered did not have a right to vote under the grand- 
father clause the word protested, and did you not have those ballots strung 
on a special string by themselves?— A. Yes, sir : I think so ; I think that is the 
wav thev were fixed. 

Q. And as a matter of fact, did you not instruct the counters in Luther 
Township not to count those votes or those ballots upon which you had writ- 
ten the word protested ?— A. No, sir. T had no authority to instruct the 
counters. 

Q. I will ask you. Mr. Vorel, if it is not true that the ballots which were 
written on by you were protested?— A. By the clerk, if you please. 

Q. Wait a minute. — A. I don't consider that a fair question; T didn't sign 
any of them protested. , . 

Q. You can just say no. — A. No, I won't answer that at all ; that am t a rair 
question. 

Q. I will ask you, Mr. Vorel. if it is not true that ths ballots which were 
written on by you protested were in fact not counted by the counters of Luther 
Township iii iiiakin? up the returns from Luther Township iipon the State 
ticket or the ticket upon which the names John J. Carney and Dick T. Morgan 

appeared? , ^ . , 

Mr. DoRTCH. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; assum- 
ing a stat€ of facts not proven. 

A. They were all counted, sir, and all returned : with the protest only, that 

is not signed by me. -r i.r, m 

Q. You have never signed the State returns have you from Luther Town- 
ship? A. I si.gned the county and township returns, but never the State. I 

said I would under circumstances if I had to. 



CAKNEY vs. MORGAN". 45 

Q. Now, Mr. Vorel. these ballots wliicli were strung on a separate string and 
wliicli were marked protested, those negroes were tested by you or were they 
not? 

Mr. DoRTCH. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and as- 
suming a state of fai;ts not proven. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were they tested or were they not? — A. They were tested. 

Q. And found by you not qualified to vote? — A. On their own say so; they 
said they could not read or write. 

Q. Did you test them? — A. I had no occasion after they told me they could; 
I couldn't get them to read or write when they said they couldn't. 

Q. No one came to you on election day and threatened to have you prosecuted 
if you didn't let these I'Cgroes vote? — A. Why I don't know what you would 
call threatening; it was mentioned when that card was handed that we were 
going up against United States laws and that we were liable to land in the 
penitentiary. 

Q. Did nnyone threaten you with personal violence? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Everything was orderly about the polls election day? — A. Yes, sir; except 
, a little fuss outside of the doors crowding In. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

By Mr. Dortch : 

Q. This Tom Franklin that was spoken of, do you know whether or not he 
could stand the test under what is known as grandfather clause? 

IMr. Morgan. Contestee objects to question ; withdrawn. 

A. On his own say so he could not. 

Q. He voted that day, did he? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know of what political faith he is? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and the 
question calling for on answer which would be hearsay. 

A. Why do you call them rock-ribbed or stalwart — he is a Republican. 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee moves to strike answer as not responsive to question 
and incompetent. 

Q. This Martin Benjamin, who was spoken of; do you know whether or not 
he could stand the test under the grandfather clause? — ^A. Not on his own say 
so: he could not, he told me at different t.mes he could not read or write. 

Q. Did he vote the State and Federal ballots in November, 1912? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know his political faith? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that qviestion for reason same is incompetent, 
irrelevant, and immaterial; the party concerning whom the witness is called 
upon to testify not having appeared and refused to tell of his political faith. 

A. Why he voted the Republican ticket. 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee moves to strike for the reasons given in the objections 
to the question, and we move to strike the statement of the witness that the 
party voted the Republican ticket because from the very nature of the system of 
voting in this State the witness could not possibly know how the voter voted 

A. Only what he called for 

JNIr. Morgan. In the election held in November, 1912. 

Q. Do you know the political faith of any of the rest of these 14 or 15 negroes 
whom you have testified to who could not stand the tests, yet voted the State 
and Federal ticket in November election, 1912? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and for 
the further reason that the 14 or 15 persons referred to have not been called 
to testify and refused to tell their political faith or how they voted in the 
November. 1912, election. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the faith of those that you know? 

Mr. Morgan. Same objection as to the last question. 

A. Republicans. 

Q. What ballot did they call for on that day? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial 

A. Republican. 

Q. Did any of these 14 or 15 negroes, when they presented themselves, make 
any statements in regard to political subjects that day? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for reason same is incompetent, irrelevant, and im- 
material, and — that is all. 



46 GAMHSE^Y VS. MOKGAN. 

A. Why they made statements in so far as — they made 'statements that they 
would vote, they had a right and insisted upon votiBg. 

By Mr. Morgan : 

Q. With regard to these 14 or 15 who insisted on voting, that was confined 
wholly to these 14 or 15 negroes whom you say can not read or write? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

State of Oklahoma, OklaJioma Gownty, ss: 

You do solemnly swear that you will well and truly take down in shorthand 
the testimony of the witnesses in this cause and that you will well, truly, and 
correctly transcribe from shorthand to longhand according to law each and 
every question and each and every answer of every witness, so help you God. 

Mr. Morgan. Put in the objections of the parties and the attorneys. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. That is all right. And all proceedings. 

J. M. Harkin. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Mary S. Hill, Notary PuUic. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

And thereupon the reporter was by the notary public sworn as per oath 
hereto attached, and the further proceedings were taken in shorthand as 
follows, to wit : 

Mr. Morgan. To which the contestee objects and the contestee hereby objects 
to the taking of any testimony in shorthand and objects to any testimony being 
taken other than in the following manner : That the testimony of the witnesses, 
together with the questions propounded by the parties or their agents, be re- 
duced to writing in the presence of the notary public, Mary S. Hill, and in the 
presence of the parties or their agents attending at this time, and duly 
attested by the witnesses, respectively. 

By Mr. Giddings : 

Q. Do you know in a general way tlie politics of those negroes who voted in 
your township? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to, and we move to strike for the reason that the same 
is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

Q. What were their politics? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Republicans. 

Mr. Morgan. And as not tlie best evidence, and we move to strike for the 
same reason. 

Q. Can you state if any negro in that precinct voted the Democratic ticket at 
the last general election? 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute ; that is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, 
and immaterial, and not being the best evidence. 

A. Every negro that called for a ballot called for a Republican ballot for the 
State and county ticket. 

Q. And also the national ticket? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

TjOUis Vorel. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of April, 1913. 

[seal.] Mary S. Hill, Notary PuWic. 

My commission expires November 21, 3915. 

Mr. B. B. MOORE, called to the stand, testified as follows, to wit : 

Direct examination by Mr. Giddings: 
Q. What is your name? — ^A. Moore, B. B. 
Q. Where do you reside? — A. Taither, Oklahoma County. 
Q. How long have you resided there? — A. About 18 years. 
Q. Where did you vote at the last general election? — A. In Luther Township. 
Q. Did you hold any official position at the election held in the State of 
Oklahoma on the 5th of November, 1912?^ — A. I did. 
Q. What position?— A. Clerk. 



CARNEY VS. MOKGAN. 47 

Q. Previous to the election of November, 1912, did you see or receive a similar 
printed communication to Exhibits A and B here handed you? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason, the same is incompetent, iiTelevant, 
and immaterial, and for the further reason there is nothing shown or attempted 
to be shown that the circulars similar to those marked "Exhibit A" and " Ex- 
hibit B " of the contestant were sent or caused to be sent by the contestee 
herein or by anyone for him or on his behalf or as his agents. 
A. I saw' circulars similar to Exhibit A but not Exhibit B. 
Q. That is you did not see the letter? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Of the district attorney? — A. Just see 

"Q. Do you know what effect, if any, the receipt of that Exhibit A had upon 
the election officials of your township as to the enforcement of the law com- 
monly known a« the grandfather clause? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and as call- 
ing for a conclusion of the witness. 

A. We let people vote that we would not otherwise have done if it hadn't 
been for that warning. 

Q. P^or what reason? — A. Well, we thought we would get in trouble with the 
Federal law if we did not. 

Q. How many negroes ove» the age of 21, male negroes, then and there re- 
sided and had so resided for over one year previous to the last general elec- 
tion, if you approximate? — A. About 130, 120 or 130. 

Q. Did you serve at the last general election in the capacitj'^ of clerk? — ^A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the mood and conduct of these negroes at the polls that day? 
Sullen, or was it the same as usual? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 
A. It was about the same as usual. 

Q. Was there sullenness exhibited there that day upon their part or any 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 
A. Onlj^ in one case. 

Q. What was that case? — A. A fellow who would not tak£ the tests and who 
w^ould not say he could neither read nor write, and we would not let him vote 
until he did. He said he would give us trouble about it. 

Q. Did the negroes fit the iwlls that day seem to know about this circular? 
Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 
A. I could not say whether they did or not. 

Q. Could you state what would have been the result in that township without 
this vote, or would it have been so that the results could not have been ascer- 
tained in the township without that vote — as to whether it would have been 
any different without that vote? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
■calling for the conclusion of the witness and his opinion. 

A. Well, the result would have been somewhat different if those 10 or 15 had 
not voted, in my opinion. 

Q. Do you know the politics of those negroes? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not 
proper foundation having been shown by calling the persons to take their 
testimony and they having refused to give their politics. 
A. Republican. 

Q. Do you know of any negro out there who voted the Democratic ticket that 
day? — A. I do not. 

Q. Did you ever serve at previous elections in that township as election 
official? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When?— A. The election before. 1910. 

Q. Do you know of any negroes out there who voted without taking the 
tests? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. If it hadn't been for this circular letter would you have required the 
tests from them? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and not 
being the duty under the laws of the State of Oklahoma for the witness, who 
was a clerk of the election board, to test those suspected of not being able to 
pass the tests under the so-called grandfather. clause. 

Q. If it hadn't been for the circular letter you have described, would the 
tests have been required in your township? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason the sarue is incompetent, irrelevant, 
and immaterial and the witness having testified that he saw no circular letter. 



48 CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

A. I think I would. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Moore, where was the election held out there; in the schoolhouse?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Out northwest of Luther? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Kow, 14 or 15 negroes voted who did not have a right to vote under the 
grandfather clause?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is your idea about it? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, do you know how many negroes voted there that day? — ^A. I think 
there was about 120, possibly more. 

Q. One hundred and twenty? — A. About that many, maybe more. 

Q. So to get at the result of the election as turned in to the county election 
board where these ]5 negroes voted without taking testimony or without 
qualifying, you would merely take the 15 from the total number of votes cast 
there in order to get at the true result of the vote, would you not? — A. I don't 
exactly understand what you mean by that. 

Q. I say, in order to get at the result of the votes as it would have been 
had these 15 negroes who were not qualified to vote under the grandfather 
clause you would merely take the 15 from the total Republican vote in that 
precinct? — A. Certainly. 

Q. That Avould give yon the true Republican vote there. How many negroes 
were tested by Mr. Vorel out there that day? — A. I could not say. 

Q. You didn't watch him? — A. No. 

Q. Now, leaving out of consideration these 15 — 14 or 15 — the remainder of 
the negroes who vo':(xl there that day were either qualified to vote under the 
grandfather tests by reason of common knowledge, knowing that they could 
read and write or they were tested, were they not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. So that at most there would not be more than 15 votes cast there who 
were not qualified to vote under the grandfather clause? — A. Not to my knowl- 
edge there wasn't. 

Q. Do you know this Mr. Green Howard? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can he read and write? — A. I think not. 

Q. You are not sure about that? — A. No; I am not sure of all of those 14 
or 15. I know a few of them — not many. I have a list of the names, but 

Q. Now, Tom Franklin, do you know him? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where does he live?— A. Near Luther, in Luther Township. 

Q. Can he read and write?— A. No, sir. 

Q. What occasion did you ever have to know whether he could read and 
write? — A. Well, I saw him around town considerable, and he passed with 
some sort of petition around town for us boys to sign, and L asked him why 
he could not sign his name to it, and he said he could not read and could not 
write and could not sign his name. 

Q. Do you know Frank Mayer? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where does he live? — A. Well, he lives — I think he lives northeast of 
Luther, if I am not mistaken. 

Q. Can he read and write? — A. I consider he could not. 

Q. Did he vote that day? — A. Yes, sir; I think he did. 

Q. Do you know Emanuel Moore? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can he read and write? — A. He said he could not. 

Q. Did he vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Will Davis, do you know him? — ^A. Yes; I know Will Davis there. 

Q. Where does he live? — A. He lives north and west of Luther, I think about 
3 miles. 

Q. How far west, and how far north? — A. Well, he did live 1 mile west and 
2 miles north of Luther. As to whether he lives there now or not I don't 
know. 

Q. Do you know A. Garrett? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where does he live? — A. Well, he lives half a mile from Luther, south- 
west, very nearly a mile. 

Q. He is a negro? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can he read and write? — A. No, sir. 

Q. How do you know? — A. He said that he could not. 

Q. Can you give me the names of any more negroes there who voted who 
can't read and write? — ^A. No; I can't. 



CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 49 

Q. You can't remember the names? — A. I can't i*emember the names. 

Q. Do you remember their faces, or where they lived or anything about 
that? — A. Yes; I Ijnow them when I see them. 

Q. You know them when you see them ; now describe 2 or 3 of them ? — 
A. They are very nearly all of them black. 

Q. What distinguishing characteristics do they have that enables you to 
distinguish one from the other? — A. Just black — just when I see them is the 
only way I can tell them apart. 

Q. How do you tell them; you say they are all black, and that you can tell 
them apart; how do you tell them apart? — A. Well, I don't know. I know one 
from another one, and that is about all there is to it. 

Q. How do you know one from the other? — A. Size and build. 

Q. What I am trying to get at here is, you say there were 14 or 15 of them ; 
now we have got about 5 of them. I would like to get at the identity of the 
other 10. — A. Don't you know the other 10 the same as you do them 5? 

Q. I am not on the witness stand, and don't know them. — A. If you asked 
me the question I could probablj^ recall them, but I can't recall them now. 

Q. I am asking you for names. — A. I can not recall the names, and that is 
all there is to it. 

Q. Now you are certain, though, that these other 10 did vote, or 9? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Now you say they said they could not vote? — A. They said they could not 
neitbei read or write. 

Q. Now, how far were you from where Mr. Vorel was stationed during elec- 
tion day, there in the schoolhouse? — A. Probably 10 to 15 feet. 

Q. You watched him all the time, did you?— A. Whenever I had time to. 

Q. Do you know Martin Benjamin? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the old man — his boys can read and write, can they not? — ^A. Yes; 
one of these Benjamins is the fellow we had the squabble with. 

Q. You didn't receive any papers similar to Exhibit A and B, of contestant's, 
through the mail, did you? — -A. No, sir. 

Q. You did not ; and Exhibit B was all that you saw there during the day? — • 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where did you see that? — A. It was handed to us in the room. 

Q. AVho handed it to you? — A. A fellow by the name of Tom McNeal. 

Q. Lives out west of tovpn? — A. Yes. 

Q. About a mile ; now did he say — did he use any threatening words when 
he handed it to you? What did he say when he handed it to you?— A. He 
said there is a piece of paper it might pay us fellows to read. We took it and 
read it. 

Q. Now, on that paper that was handed to you, was the name Dick T. Morgan 
on there? — A. No, sir; I didn't see it. 

Q. Did you see the envelope — was it in an envelope when it was handed to 
you? — A. No, sir; it was not. 

Q. Did Tom McNeal say Dick T. Morgan sent this to you? — A. He did not. 

Q. Did he say he sent it to him? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did he say where he got it? — ^A. No, sir. 

Q. Mr. Vorel was correct when he testified that Mr. McNeal was just working 
in the general interest of the Republican Party. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the witness, in- 
competent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Well, I think he was. He was a Republican and I think he was working 
for the Republicans. 

Q. You were not threatened with any physical violence there that day, were 
you? — A. Not particularly; no. 

Q. And you can't think of the names or addresses of any of these negroes 
who voted who could not qualify? — ^A. No, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. That Is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. Lots of these negroes would have been qualified if it had not been for this 
circular on voting, wouldn't they — I say there were lots of negroes there who 
voted who would not have voted if you could have applied to them the quali- 
fication test? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
assuming a state of facts not proven, the witness having already testified that 

4252—13 4 



.5i0 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN". 

all the negroes, excepting these 15, were known to be able to read and write 
to the election officials to that Luther Township or were actually tested. 

A. With the exception of these 15 negroes the rest of them were passed 
all right. They passed the test we put to them. 

Q. Was the test as it would have been had it not been for this circular? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
calling for a conclusion and opinion of the witness. 

A. I think so. 

Q. When these negroes appeared there to vote, did any of them ask in par- 
ticular for a ballot to vote for any particular candidate. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. They did. 

Q. For whom? — A. They asked me to give them a ballot. Said they wanted 
to vote for Dick T. Morgan. I told them I didn't have any special Dick T. 
Morgan ballots, but I could give them a national ballot and they could vote it 
for whoever they pleased. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. That is all. 

Recross examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Now give me the names of those who made that assertion to you. — A. 
Well, sir; I am not sure, but I think one of them was this Emanuel Moore — I 
am certain of him — and the other tvi^o I don't know, I think there were three 
of them, but the other two I disremember their names. 

Q. Now those other two, wei'e they Mayer or Davis or old man Benjamin? — 
A. I could not say which one of the other two — what the other two — what the 
other two names was at all. 

Q. It wasn't Tom Franklin? — A. I don't know whether it was Tom or not. 
It was just about like Tom, but I don't think it was. It might have been Tom 
Franklin, but I am not sure. 

Q. How long have you lived in Luther Township? — A. About IS years. 

Q. What business <\ve you in out there? — A. Farming. 

Q. Yet you don't know and can not give the names of any of the other negroes 
there whom you say can not read or write and who voted — the other io? — 
A. Well, no ; I can't. I have a list of them, but I can't name them all, that is 
all. 

Q. Now. Mr. Moore, 1 will ask you if it is not a fact that the ballots of 
those whom Mr. "S'orel considered unable to pass the tests, but who voted, were 
marked by him protested, and strung on a separate string and returned that 
way to the county election board? — A. Not by him. 

Q. Read him the (juestion. Who marked those ballots protested? — A. I did. 

Q. What did you do — just write on the ballot somewhere protested? — A. Yes. 
sir. 

Q. And you strung those on a separate string, did you? — A. I did not. 

Q. Who did that? — A. The coiniters, I suppose; I don't Ivnow that they were 
strung on a separate string. 

Q. When did you begin counting out there? — A. I think we begun about 10 
o'clock or something like that. 

Q. How far were vou from the counters? — A. We were just as far — let's 
see, we were about 40 feet, I think, or 50. We were as far as we could get 
away from the count3rs in the room. 

Q. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Moore, that these ballots of these negroes who were 
marked on there by you protested — isn't it a fact that those ballots were not 
counted in making up the general result of the counters? — A. No, sir; I don't 
think it is a fact that they were not counted. 

Q. They were counted? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And' yet you were 40 feet away from the counters while they were doing 
their work? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You, then, really don't know whether or not they were counted or not? — 
A. Well, I don't — I don't know how they done that. The only way I would 
know about that is the way my stubs tallied out with the number of ballots 
I passed out. 

Q. You compared those, did you? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You had a number of mutilated ballots, didn't you? — A. I think they 
only had one. 

Q. One"? — A. One, I think, if I am not mistaken. 

Q. As a matter of fact, didn't they have between — and 15 mutilated ballots, 
where the parties had attempted to vote for the Republican ticket generally 



CAElsTEY VS. MOEGAI!^. 61 

and they were thrown out because of errors in marking? — A. Well, sir, I could 
not say. 

Q. Who was it passed upon these mutilated ballots that you had? — ^A. The 
counters, I suppose; I didn't. 

Q. You did not — you don't know anything about the mutilated ballots, then, 
that were thrown out altogether? — ^A. No, sir; I don't know as any were thrown 
out. 

Mr. Morgan. That Is all. 

Mr. GiDDiNGs. That Is all. 

B. B. MooEE. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of April, 1913. 

[seal.] Maby S. Hill, Notary Public. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

Mr. T. H. RAY, called to the stand, testified as follows, to wit : 
Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. What is your name? — A. T. H. Ray. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. Luther. 

Q. How long have you lived at Luther, Okla.? — A. About 13 years — 14 years. 

Q. Did you occupy any official position at the last general election?— A. I 
have been inspector there for several years. 

Q. How many negroes voted in that township last general election? — A. Five 
or six, I think. 

Q. Did you receive any circulars, through the mail or otherwise? — A. Yes. 

Q. Look at Exhibits A and B. and I will ask you if you received those circu- 
lars? — A. Yes, sir; I received these circulars. 

Ml'. Morgan. Wait; we object to that, and move to strike the question 
and the answer for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and 
immaterial ; and. further, it is not shown, or attempted to be shown, that this 
coutestee, Dick T. Morgan, sent the circulars similar to Exhibits A and B of 
the contestant to the witness, or that if so done it was so done with the con- 
sent, connivance, or approbation of or by this contestee. 

Q. Do you know the political faith of those negroes who voted there? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What were they? — A. Republicans. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
we move to strike for the same reason, and for the further reason that it is 
not the best evidence, 

Q. Do you know of any negro out there who voted the Democratic ticket the 
last election? — A. None. 

Q. Did you receive any other threats, or things of that sort, other than these 
circulars? — A. No ; not to my recollection. 

Mr. Giddings. That Is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Ray ^A. Just a minute in regard to that last question. I did, 

through the mail ; there were a few people who talked to me about them, and 
said you want to be a little careful how you enforce the grandfather clause, and 
things of that sort. But. then, it hadn't any particular effect on me. 

Q. I\Ir. Ray, you say there were only five or six negroes who voted? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you name those to me. — A. I can name most of them, I think. 

Q. Proceed. — A. Jule Thomas was one, W. A. Key, and one named Williams ; 
I don't remember his initials. 

Q. Doc Williams? — A. Yes; I think they called him Doc. And then there is 
a young negro school-teacher ; I don't remember his name. 

Q. Who else? — A. I don't believe I recollect who the others were. 

Q. Do you know all these gentlemen? — A. Yes; I know them all. 

Q. Can they all read and write? — ^A. I know who they are all. but I don't 
just recall their names; sometimes they move back and forth across the street. 

Q. Those that voted could all read and write? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You knew of your own knowledge that they could read and write without 
testing? — A. There was one of them tested — Jule Thomas. 

Q. Jule Thomas was tested? — A, Yes, sir. 

Q. The balance you know can read and write? — A. Yes. 



52 CAENEY VS. MOKGAIST. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 
Mr. GiDDiNGS. That is all. 

T. H. Ray. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22d day of April, 1913. 
[seal.] Mary S. Hill, Notary PuMic. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

Mr. H. E. NORMAN, called to the stand, testified as follows, to wit : 
Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. What is your name? — -A. H. E. Norman. 

Q. Where do you reside? — -A. In Luther, Okla. 

Q. That is in Oklahoma County, isn't it? — A. Oklahoma County; yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided there? — A. Nearly nine years. 

Q. Did you occupy any official position at the last general election held with- 
in the State of Oklahoma on the 5th of November, 1912? — A. Yes, sir; I was 
clerk of the election board of Luther town precinct. 

Q. Did you see or receive through the mail the Exhibits A and B I hand 
you here? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to. 

A. I received something similar to that. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to the question and move to strike the answer for the 
reason it is not shown that the contestee herein, Dick T. Morgan, sent, had 
printed, or composed said Exhibits A and B, or that anyone by or anyone for 
him, or as his agent, had said exhibits printed or circulated in any manner 
whatsoever. 

Q. Were they anything different from those that I have shown you. Exhibits 
A and B, from the circulars you received? — A. They appear to be the same. 

Q. How did you receive them? — A. Through the mail. 

Q. Had you been previous to that time an official of any of the elections? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When? — A. I had been clerk of the election board for six or seven years. 

Q. How many negroes voted at Luther at the last election? — A. I think 
there were five or six. 

Q. Do you know their politics? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What were they? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to. 

A. Republican. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to the question, and we move to strike the question 
and the answer for tlie reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and 
immaterial, and not the best evidence. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Cross-examina tion by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Norman, you say you received papers similar to contestant's Ex- 
hibits A and B through the mail; was there anything on the envelope or inside 
it to indicate that the contestee herein, Dick T. Morgan, had procured them 
to be sent to you? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Was his name on the envelope, or anywhere inside the envelope? — ^A. No, 
sir. 

Q. These five or six negroes out there were all qualified to vote, were they 
not. under the grandfather clause; that is, they can read and write? — A. Yes, 
sir; they can read and write. 

Q. How many wei'e tested that day? — A. I don't think they tested but the 
one on the grandfather clause. They possibly tested another one as to his 
residence. I think there was a question 

Q. The balance of the negroes who voted there, the five or six besides the 
one who was tested and who passed the test, were all known by everyone — 
common knowledge there in the town that they were all able to read and 
write? — A. Generally known to the election officers; yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

H. E. Norman. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of April, 1913. 
[seal.] Mary S. Hill, Notary PuUic. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 53 

ED NEEDHAM, called to the stand, testified as follows, to wit : 
Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. What is yovu' name? — ^A. Needham, E. Needham. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. In Greeley Township. 

Q. What county? — A. Oklahoma. 

Q. Did you occupy anv otBcial position at the last general election? — A. I 
was inspector. 

Q. Had you ever occupied a similar position before in any election? — ^A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What? — A. I have been inspector, and upon the counting board. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the taking of any 
testimony regarding the conduct of the election in Greeley Township for the 
reason that there are no allegations contained in the contestant's notice of 
contest — there is no allegations with respect to the conduct of the election of 
said township in said contestant's notice of contest, and especially is there no 
allegations pertaining thereto in the seventh paragraph in said contestant's notice 
of contest. 

Q. How many negroes voted there at the last election? — A. Five. 

Q. To the best of your knowledge do you know their political faith and 
what their political faith was at that time? 

Mr. Morgan, Ob.1ected to as not the best evidence. 

A. I don't know any more than in a general way. 

Q. What were they? — A. They were supposed to be Republicans, to the best 
of my knowledge. 

Q. Did you receive any threats or structs to be intimidated out there that 
day in the enforcement of the grandfather clause? — A. Nothing more than we 
Avere threatened to be prosecuted by the central committeeman — one of the 
Republican central committeemen came up there — he came and told me he 
would prosecute me if I enforced the grandfather clause. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the question and 
the answer of the witness, for the reason that there are no allegations con- 
tained in the contestant's notice of contest regarding any threats or intimida- 
tions or other irregularities with respect to the election held in Greeley 
Township, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma on the last regular election. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike from the record 
of the testimony of the witness, for the reason that the said evidence shows that 
the said witness was a precinct election officer of Greeley Township voting pre- 
cinct in Oklahoma County, and there being no allegations with respect to said 
election in said Greeley Township in contestant's notice of contest. 

Mr. Giddings. Take the witness. 

Mr. Morgan. I don't wish to cross-examine. 

E. Needham. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of April, 1913. 

[seal.] Mary S. Hill, 'Notary PuMic. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

And thereupon, by consent, further hearing was adjourned until 10 o'clock 
to-morrow morning. 

February 7, 1913, 10 a. m., hearing convened and by consent adjourned until 
1.30 p. m., this date. 

February 7, 1913, 1.30 p. m., hearing convened and by consent adjourned until 
10 o'clock to-morrow morning. 

February 8, 1913, 9 o'clock a. m., hearing convened and by consent ad- 
journed to 10 o'clock Monday morning, February 10. 

February 10, 1913, 10 o'clock a. m., hearing convened. Four witnesses sworn 
by the notary public. 

Mr. FRANK L. KENYON, called to the stand, testified as follows, to wit: 

Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. State your full name. — A. Frank L. Kenyon is the way I sign my name 
always. 

Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. I live on the southeast quarter of section 29, 
township 12, range 1, west of Indian Meridian in Oklahoma County. 

Q. What township is that? — A. Choctaw Township. 



5^; CAR]SrEY vs. MORGAN. 

Q. Did yon hold any official position in that township at the last genei'al 
election in November, 1912? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What? Clerk?— A. Clerk of the election board. 

Q. Do you know whether or not any negroes, commonly called colored people, 
voted there at the last general election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many? — A. As nearly as I can recollect it was six or seven. 

Q. Did you receive similar circulars to Exhibits A and B handed you? 

Mr. Morgan. Wait. 

A. No, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
and we move to strike the testimony of the witness for the further reason that 
it is not shown or attempted to be shown that this conteste'e sent any circular 
of the sort or kind shown by the contestant's Exhibits A and B or that it was 
sent by anyone ■ 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. He said he didn't receive it. 

Mr. Morgan. Oh, if he didn't receive it, strike the objection. I was trying 
to stop him and didn't hear what he said. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Kenyon, you were clerk there in Choctaw Township? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You say five or six negroes voted? — A. I said six or seven; there possibly 
might have been only five but the best of my knowledge was there was seven 
negroes voted out there. 

Q. What was the names of those negroes who voted? — A. Oh, I could not 
attempt to remember them. I kept no record of it only on the stubs of the 
ballot. 

Q. These negroes were allowed to vote by the inspector — passed by him, 
were they? — ^A. Those of them that qualified to readily read the Constitution 
and that could legibly write their names. 

Mr. Morgan. They were allowed to vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And none were allowed to vote except those who did pass the test? — A. 
No, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. Do you know what the politics of those negroes who voted were? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and the 
negroes in question are the persons in question that having been first called to 
testify as to their political faith. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. All voted the Republican ticket. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Kenyon, how do you know they voted the Republican ticket? — A. I 
issued the ballots to them. 

Q. But this was on November 5 that we are talking about. — A. The general 
election. 

Q. You would just give the general ballots, the same kind of ballots you 
gave to any other kind of a voter? — A. Yes; the ballots were issued — the large 
sheet ballot. 

Q. Did you see how they voted? — A. I saw the majority of the ballots, helped 
put the ballots in the box. helped string the ballots, and helped seal them. 

Q. How could you tell which ballot was cast by which particular person who 
voted? — A. In the first place, that I passed that remark that was my knowl- 
edge of the negroes. I have been working negroes in Oklahoma in the build- 
ing business about 23 years and I have never found a negro Democrat yet^have 
never se6n one. 

Q. But I was asking you how you knew? — A. Well, I was just explaining to 
you how I knew ; was my intimate knowledge of negroes. Like a fellow would 
ask me how I would know about a mule would be my knowledge of mules. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Giddings : 
Q. Do you know of any negro who voted the Democratic ticket? — A. I nevfer 
knew a negro to vote the Democratic ticket in my life. They don't allow them 
to vote down in Texas where I come from, down in God's country. 



CAEISTEY VS. MORGAN. 5S 

Mr. Morgan. I am going to leave that in tlie record'. 

A. That don't go in the record. 

Mr, GiDDiNGS. Anything you say goes in the record. 

FEANK L. KENYOIf. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 12th day of April, 1913. 

[SEAL.] Maky S. Hill, Notary PuMic. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

MORRIS S. BAKER, being previously duly sworn, called to the stand, testified 
as follows, to wit : 

Direct examination by Mr. Giddings. 

Q. You may state your name. — A. Morris S. Baker. 

Q. Where do you reside? — A. I am on section 14 in this township. I own 
10 acres and live on it there in the southwest quarter, southeast of the south- 
east. 

Q. What township is that? — A. Oklahoma Township. 

Q. A or B?— A. A. 

Q. Did you hold any official position out there at the last general election 
in 1912?— A. I did. 

Q. What was that position? — A. Inspector of precinct A of this township. 

Q. Did any negroes vote in that township? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many? 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute. Comes now the contestee and objects to the 
taking of any testimony with reference to what might have happened in Okla- 
homa A precinct, for the reason that the contestant's notice of contest makes 
no claims or allegations respecting the conduct of the general election in 1912 
in said Oklahoma A Township. 

A. What was the question? 

Q. How many negroes voted there at the last general election in November, 
1912? — ^A. I could not give that; somewhere from 5 to 7 negroes voted there; I 
don't think as many as voted in the primary on the 6th of August. 

Q. Did you apply to them the tests known as the grandfather test? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial as to the 
Oklahoma Township, no allegations being made in the contestant's notice of 
contest regarding the conduct of the said election. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. I presented them with the Constitution; also 
that they could read and write. 

Q. Did you receive previous to the last general election — he is going to answer 
"No," so you need not make any objection to it — similar circulars to the ones 
I handed you, marked "A" and "B," respectively? — A. I didnt' get one of 
those, Mr. Giddings; I don't think I ever saw it until I saw it here In your 
office. 

Q. Did you know at the time you acted as inspector of Oklahoma A precinct 
at the last election of the conviction of Beall and Guinn in Enid for enforcement 
of the grandfather law? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. No, sir; I don't remember of it. 

Q. Do you remember about Beall and Guinn, election officials in Kingfisher 
County, who have been convicted? — A. No, sir. 

Q. In the Federal court for enforcement of this law? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Never heard of that— do you know anything about any threats ha^^^ng 
been made about the enforcement of that law? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. I may have. Well 

Q. Unless you know. — ^A. Not that I know. I may have seen something in 
the papers. 

Q. Do you know the politics of those negroes who voted out there? — ^A. 
I do not. 

Mr. MJorgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
for the further reason that the persons in question have not been called to 
testify regarding their politics or the way they voted in the last election. 
What was that answer? 

A. I don't — I said — know their politics. 
Q. What are your politics? — ^A. Democrat. 
Mr. Giddings. That is all. 



56 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 
Q. These negroes who did vote were tested, were they not? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. By having them read and write — read or write the Constitution? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Mr. MOEGAN. That is all. 

MoREis S. Baker. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of April, 1912. 

[SEAL.] Mary S. Hill, Notary Public. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

Mr. HENRY F. BALLARD, being previously duly sworn, testified as follows, 
to wit : 

Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. What is your name? — A. Henry F. Ballard. 

Q. Where do you live? — ^A. In Oklahoma Township, precinct A. 

Q. Did you occupy any official position in that precinct at the last general 
election? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to any evidence regarding 
the conduct of the election on the 5th day of November, 1912, in Oklahoma 
Township, A precinct, for the reason that there are no statements or allega- 
tions contained in the contestant's notice of contest respecting the conduct of 
said election. 

A. Yes. sir. 

Q. What position?— A. Clerk. 

Q. Did any negroes vote in that precinct at the last general election? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for 
the further reason that no statements or allegations are contained in the con- 
testant's notice of contest regarding the conduct of said election in the said 
precinct. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many, do you know? — A. I remember five and I think there was one 
or two others. 

Q. Do you know what their politics was? — A. No, sir; I could not know that. 

Q. To the best of your knowledge, what was their politics? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrele- 
vant, and immaterial, the parties in question not having been called and re- 
fused to testify regarding their politics. 

A. Shortly before the election I heard one of the negroes state that he was a 
Republican and always voted the Republican ticket. 

Q. You have not answered my question — I want to know what was your 
knowledge of the politics of all of them, if you know? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that for the same reason last above stated. 

Q. Do you know of any negro out there who voted the Democratic ticket? — 
A. No, sir. 

Q. At the last general election did you receive similar circulars to Exhibits 
A and B handed you? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee objects to that for the reason that the same is in- 
competent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not having been shown that the contestee 
or anyone by or for him 

Q. Well, he is going to say " No." 

Mr. Morgan. Had anything to do with the sending of these circulars? 

A. Yes, sir; I received one of those. 

Q. When did you get that? — A. Well, about the day after the election. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike all the evidence 
of Henry F. Ballard and M. S. Baker relating to the conduct of the election 
in Oklahoma A township, for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrele- 
vant, and immaterial, and for the further reason that no statements or allega- 
tions are contained in the contestant's notice of contest respecting the conduct 
of said election in the said precinct. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

H, F. Ballard. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22d day of April, 1913. 

[seal.] Mary S. Hill, Notary Public. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 5Y 

Mr. FRANK REDDING, called to the stand and, being first duly sworn, testi- 
fied as follows, to wit : 

Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. What is your name? — A. Frank Redding. 

Q. How do you spell Redding. — A. R-e-d-d-i-n-g. 

Q. Where do you reside? — ^A. Spencer. 

Q. What township is that?— A. Crutcho. 

Q. Oklahoma County, Okla.? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you lived there? — A. A little more than nine years. 

Q. Continuously? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you a married man? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you a married man at the last election? — -A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you occupy any oflicial position at the last general election, November, 
1912?— A. 'Yes, sir. 

Q. What was it? — A. Inspector. 

Q. Had you occupied a similar position at any other election? — A. Not the 
same position ; no, sir. 

Q. What position? — A. I was clerk at the primary in August. 

Q. Did you receive previous to the last general election similar circulars to 
Exhibits A and B, here handed you? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for 
the further reason that it has not been proven that the contestee or anyone by 
or for him wrote or composed or printed or sent the circulars similar to those 
handed to the witness — to this witness. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. I received such circulars. 

Q. How did they come? 

Mr. Morgan. Same objection as last above. 

A. By mail. 

Q. Do you know how many negroes voted in Crutcho Township at the last 
election? — ^A. No; I don't know the exact number. 

Q. Do you know about how many? — A. Well, there must have been something 
like 18 or 20, I suppose. 

Q. Do you know generally what their politics was? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not 
being shown that the parties in question had refused to testify regarding their 
politics or that they voted for the contestee herein. 

A. I didn't have any evidence. I could not say that I know how they voted. 
I never heard any of them say how they would vote. 

Q. I asked you what their politics was generally represented to be in that 
neighborhood — Republican, Democratic, Socialist, or what? 

Mr. Morgan. Same objection as last above stated. 

A. Generally represented to be Republican. 

Q. Do you know any negro out there who voted the Democratic ticket at last 
general election? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and 
calling for the conclusion of the witness. 

A. No ; I don't. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Are you sure, Mr. Redding, that these negroes did not vote the Demo- 
cratic ticket? — A. No, sir; I don't know what ticket they voted. 

Q. You say there were 15 or 20 negroes voted? — A. I think there was possibly 
something like that. I would not make a positive statement, because I didn't 
count them at the time. 

Mr. Giddings. I object to that question as a misstatement. He said 18 or 20. 

Q. Eighteen — I got it down as 15. These 15 or 18 negroes that voted were 
tested under the terms as what is known as the grandfather clause, were 
they? — A. Well, part of them were — that I had seen tested at the primary and 
knew by doing business with them — knew they were capable of reading and 
writing — were not tested. 

Q. Speak louder, please. — A. The one I didn't know, I did, and the others 
that I have known for a number of years and had business with them and 
knew they could read and write, I voted them without the tests. 

Q. You didn't test them and let them vote without the test, because you knew 
they could read and write? — A. Yes, sir. 



58 CAEFEY VS. MORGAN. 

Q. No negroes voted there who were not able to read and write a section of 
the constitution? — A. I don't think so. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. Just a moment^one other question : Did the 
envelope in which these circulars came — or was there anything in the envelope 
in which these circulars came to indicate to you that the contestee herein, Dick 
T. Morgan, or anyone by him or for him or his campaign committee, sent that 
literature to you? — A. I never noticed anything of the kind. I don't remember 
of it. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Mr. E. A. WAGNER, called to the stand, testified as follows, to wit : 
Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. What is your name? — A. E. A. Wagner. 

Q. Have you been sworn? — A. No, sir. 

(And thereupon the witness, Mr. E. A. Wagner, was by the notary public 
sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this 
hearing. ) 

Q. What is your name? — A. E.A.Wagner. 

Q. Where do you reside? — A. Crutcho Township. 

Q. Oklahoma County, Okla.?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you resided there? — A. Eighteen years. 

Q. Continuously? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you occupy any official position at the last general election? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. What?— A. Clerk. 

Q. Had you ever occupied that or a similar position at any other election? — ■ 
A. Well, I had been clerk once or twice. before and counter one time. 

Q. Do you know how many negroes voted in that precinct at the last general 
election? — A. I should judge, between 20 and 25. 

Q. Do you know what their politics were? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and for the 
reason that the parties themselves have not been called in and refused to testify 
regarding their politics. 

A. Only from the primary. They generally always took the Republican ticket. 

Q. Do you know of any negro out there who voted the Democratic ticket? — 
A. No, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. That is objected to. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Are you sure, Mr. Wagner, that all these negroes who voted voted the 
Republican ticket? — A. At the election? 

Q. Yes. — A. No, sir. 

Q. You would not be sure of that? — A. I would not swear that. 

Q. You didn't see their ballots and see how they did vote? — A. No. 

Q. These negroes who did vote were all tested under the terms of the grand- 
father clause by the inspector? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

E. A. Wagneb. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of April, 1913. 

[SEAL.] Mary S. Hill, Notary Public. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

And thereupon by consent the hearing was adjourned until 1.30 p. m., this 
date. 

Hearing resumed, 1.30 p. m. Two witnesses duly sworn by the notary public. 

Mr. Morgan. I will object again to the manner of taking this testimony. 
Comes now the contestee and hereby again objects to the manner in which the 
evidence is being taken because of the fact that the testimony of the witnesses, 
together with the questions propounded by the parties or their agents, are not 
being reduced to writing at the time that the same is given and is not being 
reduced to writing in the presence of the parties or their agents attending and 
not attested by the witnesses respectfully at the time. 



OABNEY VS. MORGAN. 59 

Mr. C. B. JACK, called to the stand, testified as follows, to wit : 
Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. What is yonr name? — A. C. B. Jack. 

Q. Where do you reside? — A. Hartzell Township. 

Q. How long have you resided there? — A. About 23 years. 

Q. Did you ever occupy any official position at any of the elections held in 
that township? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you occupy any official position at the general election held in 1912 
in Hartzefl Township, Oklahoma County, Okla.?— A. Yes. 

Q. What position? — A. Clerk of the election. 

Q. Did any negroes vote in that township at that election? — A. Yes. 

Q. How many? — A. I don't remember, but somewhere between 8 and 12, I 
should judge, or 13. 

Q. Do you know what their political faith was? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for 
the further reason that the negroes themselves have not been called and refused 
to testify regarding their ix)litical faith or for whom they voted at the last 
general election. 

A. Why, yes, I think they ai-e all Republicans. 

Q. Do you know what ticket, if any, they called for at the time of the 
primary election in August, 1912? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial. 

A. They all wanted the Republican ticket. 

Mr. Giddings. Take the witness. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Could you be sure, Mr. Jack — do you know that all these 8 to 12 or 13 
negroes voted the Democratic ticket at the last general election? — A. Do I 
know that they did? 

Q. Yes. — A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know whether or not these negroes who voted were qualified under 
the grandfather clause — that is, were they tested by the inspector, if you 
know? — A. Those that voted? 

Q. Yes. — A. Every one of them was qualified, so far as we understood, under 
the grandfather clause. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Redirect examination by jNIr. Giddings : 

Q. Did you know at the time that you served at the last general election 
anything about the conviction of Beall and Guinn, of Kingfisher? 

Mr. Morgan.* We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Had the officers out in that precinct talked about that matter? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You had considered it? — A. We had talked about It. 

Q. Do you know whether the inspector also had considered it?^ — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that and move to strike it for the reason that 
the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

C. B. Jack. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of April, 1913. 

[SEAL.] Mary S. Hill, Notary Public. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

Mr. E. A. RINGOLD, called to the stand and being first duly sworn, testified 
as follows, to wit: 

Direct examination by Mr. E. J. Giddings : 
Q. What is your name? — A. E. A. Ringold. 
Q. Where do you reside? — A. Oklahoma City. 
Q. How long have you resided here? — A. Eight years. 
Q. Continuously? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you occupy any official position in reference to election matters in 
Oklahoma County at and before the last general election? — A. I did. 



60 CAKNEY VS. MOKGAlSr. 

Q. What? — A. Secretary of tbe Oklahoma County election board. 

Q. How long had j^ou occupied that position? — A. Since June, 1911. 

Q. Are you still the secretary? — A. I am. 

Q. Were you in charge of the registration of the voters in Oklahoma City 
previous to the general election in 1912? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the question for the 
reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for the 
further reason that under the laws of the State of Oklahoma the secretary of 
the county election board could have no jurisdiction over the registration of 
voters, that being delegated to the precinct inspector of each precinct, respec- 
tively, in cities. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. I wasn't in charge further than advising and 
instructing the precinct inspectors and registration clerk as to the manner of 
conducting the registration. 

Q. Do you know whether or not there was any hesitancy on the part of those 
precinct officers with reference to qualifying negroes, commonly called colored 
people? — ^A. There was. 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute; the contestee objects to the question for the 
reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

Q. Do you know what the cause of that was? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. I know the cause they gave me was that they were afraid of the Federal 
laws. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike out the answer of the 
witness for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
there being no allegations in the contestant's notice of contest relative to prose- 
cution by the Federal authorities in July, the month in which the registration 
in cities was had. 

Q. Did you see any hesitancy upon the part of these precinct election officials 
in these registration matters? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Two inspectors resigned their positions in the city rather than conduct this 
registration. 

Q. If you know you may state whether or not they knew and you knew of any 
prosecutions that had been conducted by the Federal Government on account 
of the grandfather clause antedating the time of this registration — that is, 
before. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for 
the further reason that there are no statements or allegations contained in the 
contestant's notice of contest relative to any former prosecution had by a 
Federal authority. ' , 

Q. Answer the question. — A. I knew of such prosecution, and I am not sure 
that they — I have no proof that they knew of it. 

Q. That is other than what you have?— A. Other than they spoke of that 
they were afraid to undertake to enforce the statute in what is known as the 
grandfather clause for the reason that they did not want to get into trouble 
with the Federal authorities. 

Q. Mr. Ringold, did you have any difficulty in the securing of precinct elec- 
tion officials to act at the general election in 1912? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not 
tending to prove any of the allegations or statements of contestant's notice of 
contest. 

A. In two precincts of this city and two of the counties outside of the city 
I did. 

Q. What were the grounds— what reasons led them to that? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. They simply gave as their reason that they were afraid to get in trouble 
and could not afford to get into trouble about the election law. They were 
men of families and could not afford to take the chances. 

Q. Do you know respectively who were the Democratic and Republican 
nominees for Congress in the second congressional district in the State of Okla- 
homa at the last general election in 1912? — A. I do. 

Q. Who were they? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to unless the witness show himself competent to testify 
and for the further reason that the records are the best evidence. 

Q. Answer the question. — ^A. J. J. Carney, the Democratic nominee, and 
Dick T. Morgan, the Republican nominee. 



CAKNEY VS. MOKGAN. 61 

Q. Mr. Ringold. did you keep tlie registration list made up at the registra- 
tion period preceding tlie last general election in November, 1912? 

Mr. Morgan. Ob.1ected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for 
the further reason that under the lavps of the State of Oklahoma it vs^as the duty 
of each inspector in his precinct to keep the list of the registration in his 
precinct. 

A. I have in my possession a copy of the entire registration of the city. 

Q. Do you know it is a true and correct copy of the entire registration of 
this city? — ^A. I do. 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute. 

Q. Is it?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you produce the originals and attach those originals to your depo- 
sition? — A. Certificate or duplicate certificate? 

Q. Yes; the registration list, the certificates?— A. Not the originals, no, sir; 
I can't. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. We here offer in evidence a true and correct copy of the entire 
registration list of the city of Oklahoma City, Okla., preceding the last general 
election in November, 1912, and ask that the same be marked bj^ the stenog- 
rapher " ^Exhibit B." 

(Marked " Exhibit E.") 

Mr. Morgan. To which the contestee objects for the reason that the same is in- 
competent, irrelevant, and immaterial, that it is not shown that the exhibit offered 
in evidence is a true and correct copy of the registration list, and for the fur- 
ther reason that the records — -that the ofllcial records is the best evidence — 
the exhibits offered in evidence being secondary evidence or a copy thereof, and 
for the further reason that the witness identifying the same is not the proper 
officr under the laws of the State of Oklahoma to have the registration list 
of all of the precincts of Oklahoma City in his possession, and the exhibit not 
being properly authenticated or proven. 

Q. What period does that registration list cover? 

Mr. Morgan. And not the best evidence. 

A. The month of July, 1912 ; or rather from July 1 to July 27, 1912, and 
three days in October. I can't remember the dates, though. 

Q. 1912? — A. Yes, sir; three days in the latter part of October — three daj's 
out of the last week of October, 193 2. I don't remember the dates. 

Q. Is there any possible way by which the originals could be attached to 
your deposition? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. There is not. 

Mr. Morgan. And we move to strike out for the same reason. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Take the witness. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. What are the names and addresses of those who resigned their positions 
as inspectors in Oklahoma County rather than to conduct the registration? — • 
A. A. H. Wollison, precinct 6 of the second ward. H. Sunnyshine, precinct — 
this was in^this was to conduct the registration — that is, to conduct the elec- 
tion that they resigned from and not the registration. 

Q. What precinct is Silvershine in? — A. Sunnyshine; nine of the second. 
T would like to correct that statement if I could there. 

Q. So there were no inspectors who resigned rather than conduct the regis- 
tration? — A. No — now, that is, Mr. Wollison, Mr. A. H. Wollison, and Mr. 
H. Sunnyshine both handed in their resignations during the time of registra- 
tion, but as we had already started the registration and was then — the regis- 
tration wi!S at that time going on, I refused to accept their resignations until 
the registration was finished; that is, the county election board refused. 

Q. So as a matter of fact there were no inspectors who resigned before the 
time of beginning the registration, the 1st day of July? — A. Not before the time 
of beginning. 

Q. That is what I say.— A. Yes. 

Q. Now, during the time the registration was going on these two men ten- 
dered their resignations and their resignations were refused? — A. Until the 
registration was finished. 

Q. And they continued to serve? — A. They continued to serve during the 
registration. 

Q. And were, in fact, inspectors through the whole time of the registration? — 
A. They were the recognized inspectors of those precincts until the registration 



62 CAKNEY VS. MORGAN. 

was finisbed, at which time the resignations were received aiod new appoint- 
ments made. 

Q. You say In two precincts of the city you had difficulty in getting inspectors. 
What two precincts were they? — A. Of the city? 

Q. Yes.— A. That is the two we .just answered, A. H. Wollison in the sixth of 
the second, the two men who resigned — those two who resigned those places. 

Q. How much trouble did you experience in getting men to fill those places. — 
A. Well, there was quite a little, Mr. Morgan — that is, in getting the— we might 
have gotten men if we had .iust took anybody, but in getting capable men we 
experienced some trouble. Take for instance nine of the second ; I went to 
three different men to get them to take that precinct and finally Mr. J.- E. 
Lucas, who was finally appointed and had refused the place twice; I went the 
third time to him. 

Q. And what were the two precincts in the county? — A. Choctaw Township 
and Deep Fork Township. 

Q. Now, Mr. Ringold, the registration in Oklahoma City in July was not 
conducted exactly in accordance with the law, was it; that is to say, Mr. 
Eingold, as I understand it the registration instead of being carried on by each 
inspector in his own precinct and having a separate place of registration, the 
registration was conducted at one central point. That is true, is it not? — A. 
The registration was conducted at one central point, but not in violation of 
the law as we understand it. 

Q. Yes; I understand that, but the mode of operation was the inspectors 
signed up their book of certificates and then when the voters came in they were 
directed to a certain table where a man had in charge maybe four or five books 
of registration slips, and the man who was there in charge of those registra- 
tion slips and those books — the registration books or certificates — they filled 
in the blanks and gave the party their registration slip. That was the method 
of operating? — A. That is correct. 

Q. Now, how many of the men who had charge there of the registration at 
th:it central point were in fact inspectors? — A. All of them. 

Q. Now, who was in charge there of those different tables? — A. Mr. D. Y. 
Stevens was in charge of the first ward, Mr. Lon Owens was in charge of the 
second ward, JNIr. R. A. Wooldridge was in charge of the third ward, Mr. 
R. W. Gillette was in charge of the foui'th ward, and during this registration 
all of the inspectors were in and out of this place of registration and in a num- 
ber of instances issued certificates themselves while there in the place. 

Q. Now, tliis copy of this poll here or this copy of this registration was copied 
by some one off of the registration stubs, is that it? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was it copied by you? — ^A. It was copied by the assistants in my office. 

Q. Not by you personally? — A. Not by me individually. 

Q. So you would not know of your own knowledge that this Exhibit E is 
an exact and true and correct copy? — A. I would be willing to certify that 
it was. 

Q. You would be willing to certify, but you don't know of your own knowl- 
edge that it is? — A. Yes; I saw them copying it right off the stub books. 

Q. But you didn't watch each name that they copied to see that they got it 
correct? — A. I did not, but rechecked after it had been copied. 

Q. With the aid of some one else? — A. Yes, sir; with the aid of other help. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

E. A. Ringold. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 30th day of April, 1913. 

[SEAL.] Mary S. PIill, Notary Puhlic. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

The further testimony of this witness is by consent adjourned until 1.30 p. m. 
to-morrow. 

And thereupon two witnesses were duly sworn by the notary public to testify 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in this cause. 

Mr. J. W. SORRELLS, called to the stand, and being first duly sworn, testified 
as follows, to wit : 

Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. Yon mav state vour name. — A. J. W. Sorrells. 

Q. Where do von reside, Mr. Sorrells?— A. At 706 West Twenty-sixth. 

Q. Oklahoma City, Okla.?— A. Oklahoma City, Okla. 



CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 63 

Q. How long have you resided in Oklalaoma City? — A. About six yeai's— about 
five years, I guess it is. 

Q. Did you occupy any official position at the last general election held within 
the State of Oklahoma on the 5th of November, 1912? — A. I did. I was pre- 
cinct inspector of precinct 6, ward 2. I lived then at 1739 East Eleventh street, 
in that precinct. 

Q. Did you serve at that election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In that capacity? — ^A. Yes. 

Q. I now hand you Exhibits A and B, and I will ask you if you received pre- 
vious to the last general election similar circulars? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not 
having been shown that this contestee composed or printed or sent circulars 
similar to Exhibits A and B to the witness or that anyone for him or by his 
authority sent such circulars. 

A. Yes ; I got some of those. 

Q. How did you get them? — A. Well, I don't remember; I got those, I think, 
in the mail, though. I know I got a copy of both of those circulars. 

Q. What effect, if any, did it have on you in the enforcement of what is com- 
monly termed the grandfather clause? 

Mr. Morgan. Ob.1eeted to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, calling 
for the conclusion of the witness, and for the further reason that it was not 
the duty of the witness as inspector of precinct '6, ward 2, in Oklahoma City, 
to apply a test under what is knowsi as the grandfather clause to voters applying 
to vote at the last general election. 

A. It caused me to hesitate to enforce the law. 

Q. Do you know whether or not it had the same effect upon other election 
officials there? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrele- 
vant, and immaterial, and not showing that he knows what effect it had. 

A. Yes; they didn't want to enforce it at all. They was afraid of this letter. 

Q. Did you know, previous to that time, of the conviction of Beall and Guinn, 
of Kingfisher County, in the Federal court? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, there 
being no allegations in the contestant's notice of contest- — 

A. Yes. 

Mr. Morgan (continuing). That any officers of the last general election were 
intimidated or affrightened by the conviction in the Beall and Guinn case. 

A. Yes ; I knew about it ; I knew they had 

Q. Were you a married man at that time? — A. Yes. 

Q. If it hadn't been for these illegal votes being cast there on account of the 
nonenforcement of the grandfather clause would you be able to ascertain what 
would have been the result in that precinct? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
calling for the conclusion and the opinion of the witness. 

A. It would have made quite a lot of difference if the negroes had been kept 
from voting. It would have been about SO or 90 different. 

Mr. Morgan. We move to strike that out as not responsive to the question. 

Q. Do you know the political faith of those negroes, or colored people?— A. 
Yes. 

Q. What was it? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Republican. 

Q. What was the mood of these negroes around the polls that day; was it 
sullen or otherwise? — A. Well, is was rather threatening, I think. They 
bothered us quite a lot. 

Q. Did any one of them exhibit any of these circulars? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. No; they talked about them. There was three of them came in to me and 
said they would have us arrested, and I made them get out of the room. 

Mr. Morgan. We move to strike that out as not responsive. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Now, Mr. Sorrells, did you test these negroes on election day? — A. In 
what way? 

Q. By making them read or write a section of tlie constitution of the State 
of Oklahoma? — A. Why, let's see; I made them write, but didn't make them 
read. I didn't make them write the constitution — just their names. 



64 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

Q. Were there any negroes who voted out there who didn't have registration 
slips showing that tliey were registered voters in this city? — A. No. 

Q. Tlien all of tlieni had registration slips? — A. Yes. 

(.). Did you understand it to be your duty if they hud registration slips to 
retest them on election day? 

Mr. DouTcii. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Well, 1 didn't know whether they had been tested before or not. 

(.1 You knew if they had registration slips that tliey had qualified under the 
grandfather clause to get iham, did you not? — A. Well, there was — I think 
that they ai'e supi)osed to; yes. 

Q. And notwithstanding the fact if a negro should ajiply to vote and had u 
registration slip you proceeded to test tliem again, did you? — A. I didn't give 
thena — no; it would not be called a test. I made them write tlieir names. 

Q. They all wrote their names? — A. All that voted. There was one man came 
there that didn't have a registration certificate, and could not read or write, 
either. 

Q. Did he vote?— A. No. 

Q. You turned him down? — A. Yes. 

Q. Any other negroes you turned down? — A. No; these are all. 

Q. And you say tliey all, witli the exception of this one, had registration 
slips? — A. Yes. 

Q. In due form? — A. All of them had registration slips. 

Q. When did you get these circulars in the mail? — A. Well. I just stated -i 
while ago I don't remember whether I got them in the mail or not, but I got 
them somewhere. 

Q. Did you get them before the election or after? — A. Before the election. 
And I understood that all tlie election officers were getting them, and T don't 
just remember whei'o I got mine. I must have got tliem in the mail, tliough. 

Q. So in view of tlie fact that all these negroes excei)t one who voted at 
that polling precinct had registration slips, it could not be that these circulars 
had any great influence over you at tliat election, could it? — A. Well, if I 
hadn't gotten those circulars I would have put them through a rigid test, 
anyhow. 

Q. In spite of the fact it would npt have been your duty to have done so at 
that time? 

Mr. GiDDiNGs. We object to that, because it was his duty. 

A. I might have understood my duty otherwise. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Mr. GinniNCS. That is all. 

J. W. SORRFXLS. 

Subscribed and sworn to l)efore me this 26th day of April, 1913. 

[seal.] Mary S. Hill, Notary Public. 

My couunission expires November 21, 1915. 

Mr. J. E. LUCAS, called to the stand, and being first duly sworn, testified as 
follows, to wit : 

Direct examination by Mr. Giddings: 

Q. What is your name? — A. J. E. Tiucas. 

Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Lucas? — A. Oklahoma City. 

Q. How long have you resided in Oklahoma City?— A. Eleven years. 

Q. Continuously? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you occupy any official position at the last general election held within 
tlie State of Oklahoma?— A. I did. 

Q. In November, 1912?- A. I did. 

Q. What?— A. Inspector. 

Q. What precinct?— A. I think it was— I am not right certain— I think it is 
precinct B of the second, though, at the end of the viaduct up here. 

Q. Precinct 9 of the second? — A. Precinct 9 of the second, was it? I don't 
just remember. 

(). Did any negroes vote there that day? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many?— A. Well, I would judge in the neighborhood of 200, maybe 
moi-e. I would judge tliere was about 200, maybe a little more than 200. I 
don't remember exactly what the entire vote was tliere. 

Q. Do you know what their politics was? — A. Why, I know what the ma- 
jority of them is. 



CAKNEY VS. MORGAN. 65 

Q. Whnt?— A. Republicans. 

Q. Do yon know of any negro wbo voted the Democratic ticlvet over there 
that day? — A. No; I don't. 

Q. Showing you Exhibits A and B, I will ask you if preceding the last elec- 
tion you received the same or similar ones? — A. I did. 

Q. How did you get them?— A. Through the mail. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the evidence rela- 
tive to receiving the circulars for the reason that the same is incompetent, 
irrelevant, and innnaterial, and further it has not been shown that the contestefe 
or anyone by or for him composed, mailed, or sent circulars similar to Exhibits 
A and B to "the witness. 

Q. What elTect, if any, did it have upon you in the enforcement of what is 
commonly called the grandfather clause at the last general election? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
calling for a conclusion of the witness, and further for the reason that under 
the laws of the State of Oklahoma it is not the duty of the witness as inspector 
of precinct 9, ward 2. in the city of Oklahoma City, to apply any tests to 
any voters presenting himself to vote if he had a registration certificate. 

A. It had a tendency of me being a little more lenient with the negro votes 
than if I hadn't received it. 

Q. Do you know whether or not it had an eft'ect upon the other officials in 
the same manner? — A. I think it did; we talked about it. 

Q. If it hadn't been for this influence do you know whether or not the results 
would have been different in that precinct? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to. 

Q. Or would it have any effect upon the result in that precinct? — A. I think 
it would. 

Mr. Morgan. " I think it would." That is objected to, and we move to strike 
the answer of the witness for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrele- 
vant, immaterial, and a conclusion of the witness. 

Mr. Giudings. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Lucas, did any negroes vote there, Mr. Lucas, except those who had 
registration certificates in precinct 9, ward 2? — A. I don't think there was ex- 
cept — well I don't remember as there was. Now, there has been — well, that 
wouldn't have any bearing in this case. I don't thinls there was that I 
Icnow of. 

Q. To the best of your knowledge, then, there was no negroes voted in precinct 
9, ward 2, Oklahoma City, except they had registration certificates in due form 
properly signetl? — A. I don't think there was. There was some of them there 
that had registration tickets that wasn't in due form that we didn't let vote. 

Q. Now, did you understand, Mr. Lucas, that if a negro applied to vote in 
your precinct there on election day and had a registration certificate that it 
was your duty to test him under the terms of the grandfather clause?— A. Well, 
that was my understanding about it. 

Q. That it wasn't your duty?— A. That it was my duty. Well, if I had any 
doubt that he wasn't a qualified voter, Mr. Morgan, it was my opinion that I 
had a right to test him. 

Q. But the ones who presented themselves with a certificate, you had no 
doubt but what they were qualified voters and you didn't test those who pre- 
sented a certificate? — A. No; I didn't test them. 

Q. You just let them— passed them on? — A. I passed them on and let them go. 

Q. To the clerk. Though it was evidently your opinion, Mr. Lucas, that 
every negro who voted was in fact a qualified voter under the terms of the 
grandfather clause, is th.at right?— A. Well. Mr. Morgan, I could not hardly 
answer that as I believe that he was, but at the same time under the conditions 
existing I could not hardly turn him down. 

Q. Now, do you know of — for sure of your own knowledge of any negro 
having voted the Republican ticket? — A. Do I know? 

Q. Of your own knowledge. — A. No, sir. 

Q. That any certain negro voted the Republican ticket?— A. Not of my own 
knowledge. 

Q. Then you could not be sure but what all of them voted the Democratic 
ticket?— A. I could not be sure; the only thing I know is with regard to their 
registration ticket. 

4252—13 5 



66 CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 

Q. And they represented to be Republicans? — A. Yes. 

Q. But you don't know of your own knowledge what ticket they voted? — ^A. 
No, sir ; I don't. 

Q. Tliey might have voted the Socialist ticket for all you know? — ^A. They 
might have. [Laughs.] 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Dortch : 
Q. You know what ballot stubs they called for? — ^A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What?— A. Republican. 
Mr. DoRTCH. That is all. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. As a matter of fact, every voter who applies, even though a Socialist, got 
the same ballot as every other person who applied to vote? — ^A. No; no, they 
didn't. 

Mr. Dortch. They had three books. 

A. All in different books. 

Mr. Morgan. I am talking about the general election held November 5 — 
each voter who applied got the same sort of a ticket, and he could vote either 
the Democratic or the Republican or the Socialist ticket, and he could try to 
vote the Bull Moose ticket if he wanted to. ■ • 

A. He could on part of it. 

Q. Well, on all of it? — ^A. I don't know; I don't believe he could. 

Q. Don't you know, as a matter of fact A. I don't remember now 

Q. That if a Democrat walked up just ahead of me that he got the ballot 
which was just above mine in the ballot book, and that we both of us got the 
same sort of ballots to stamp? — A. I am telling you right; I don't remember 
exactly, but I rather believe that he is right about it [addressing Mr. Dortch]. 

Q. No question about it. That is all. 

J. E. Lucas. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of April, 1913. 

[SEAL.] Mary S. Hill, Notary Public. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

Mr. B. B. MOORE, called to the stand, and being first duly sworn, testified as 
follows, to wit: 

Direct examination by Mr. Dortch : 

Q. State your name. — A. B. B. Moore. 

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Moore? — A. At Luther. 

Q. In Oklahoma County? — A. In Oklahoma County. 

Q. How long have you lived here? — A. About 18 years. 

Q. What ofiicial position, if any, did you hold during the November, 1912, 
election? — A. Clerk on the election board. 

Q. Of what precinct? — A. Luther precinct, Luther Township. 

Q. Luther Township? — A. Yes. 

Q. State, if you know, how many negroes voted in that township at the 
November, 1912, election. — A. Possibly 120 or 130 negroes. 

Q. How many votes altogether did you have in that township? — ^A. We had 
198. 

Q. I will hand you now contestant's Exhibits A and B and ask you did you 
receive anything similar to that prior to the election? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the question for the 
reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for the 
further reason that it is not shown that Exhibits A and B or papers similar 
thereto were composed, printed, sent out, or procured to be sent out by this 
contestee, or by anyone for him, or as agent for him, or in his behalf, and that 
he had not any knowledge of the same. 

A. I received circulars similar to Exhibit A but nothing similar to Exhibit B, 

Q. When did you receive that? — A. On election day. 

Q. How did you receive it? — A. A party handed it to us in the room. 

Q. Do you know who that party was? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was it? — A. Thomas McNeal. 

Q. Do you know what political faith Thomas McNeal is? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is it? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as immaterial. 



CAENEY VS. MOKGAN. 67 

A. Republican. 

Mr. Morgan. And we move to strike out for tlie same reason. 

Q. What effect, if any, did tlie receiving and reading of that circular have 
upon you in the enforcement of the so-called grandfather clause? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee objects for the reason that the same calls for the con- 
clusion and opinion of the witness and not for a statement of any facts. 

A. Why, it caused us to let" parties vote that we would have not let vote if 
we hadn't received that circular. 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee moves to strike the last question and answer for 
the reason that under the laws of the State of Oklahoma it is not the duty of 
the witness, who was clerk in the Luther precinct township, to administer or 
give the test under the so-called grandfather clause. 

Q. State, if you know, how many voters that you would not have let vote 
had it not been for this circular. 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute. We object to that for the reason that the same 
is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and calls for the conclusion and 
opinion of the witness. 

A. Fourteen or fifteen. 

Q. Were they all negroes? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DoBTCH. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Moore, you are a Democrat, aren't you? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Mr. Vorel is also a Democrat? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know a Mr. T. J. Clark in Dewey Township? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What political faith is he? — ^A. I am not sure, but I think he is a Demoa 
crat. 

Q. What about Davis, who was inspector over in Dewey Township, is he 
a Democrat? — ^A. I could not say whether he is or not. 

Q. What time of day did yot get this Exhibit A handed to you or what time 
of day was it handed to you? — A. It was in the morning about 9.30 or 10 o'clock. 

Question. Fourteen or fifteen negroes were allowed to vote that you would, 
not have let vote if it hadn't been for this circular? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were these 14 or 15 negroes able to read and write? — -A. No, sir. 

Q. Did the inspector test them? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. They were not able to read and write? — A. No, sir; they wasn't. 

Q. Notwithstanding that fact you let them vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In spite of the fact that the laws in the State of Oklahoma provided that 
they shan't be allowed to vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You never saw the Boardman — ^what is known as the Boardman — letter 
at all during election day? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Didn't receive it in the mail? — A. No, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Dortch : • 

Q. Do you know the political faith of these 14 or 15 negroes that you 
speak of? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, no 
proper foundation having been laid by calling these negroes by them refusing 
to testify regarding their political faith. 

A. They were Republicans. 

Q. Do you know the names of. them? — ^A. I have a list of them; I don't know 
whether I have a list of all of them or not, but most of them. 

Q. Have you that list with you? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Produce it, will you. From what was that list prepared? — A. This list 
was prepared from the stubs of the ballots; as I wrote them off on the stubs I 
wrote them on this paper in order to keep a list of them. 

Q. At the time the vote was cast? — ^A. Yes, sir; at the time the vote was 
taken. 

Q. Can you take that list and call off the nnmes of the 14 or 15 negroes 
whom you speak of that voted? — A. I can call most of them, I don't know 
whether I have all of them here or not, but I think most of them. I have all 
of them on a separate list, I don't know whether they are all on here or not. 
They possibly might not be all on here. 

Q. Call off what you can, please. — ^A. Thomas Franklin, Martin Benjamin, 
Emanuel Moore, Andrew Garrett, John Patterson, R. H. Sheldon, Isaac Arm- 
strong, Frank Mayer, and C. Fox. That is all I have on this list. How many 
is that, nine? 



08 CAENEY VS. MOEGAF. 

Q. Nine.— A. I liave the others ou a list at borne. I didn't have time to 
hunt it up. 

Q. There was more than those nine, were there? — A. Yes, sir; there was 15, 
I thinis; ; if I am not mistaken there was 15. 

Mr. DoRTCH. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Moore, these 14 or 15 negroes you know of your own knowledge that 
they voted for Dick T. Morgan ? — A. No, sir ; I don't. 

Q. You could not state positively but what they voted for John J. Carney, 
could you? — ^A. No, sir. 

Q. Where does Tom Franklin live? — ^A. He lives in Luther Township. 

Q. Yes; but about where from Luther? — A. He lives near the town of 
Luther, just outside the corporation. 

Q. And Martin Benjamin; that is, Martin Benjamin, sr., the old man?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Where does he live? — ^A. I think he lives southeast of town now some- 
where. 

Q. About hoAv far? — A. I don't know how far. 

Q. Emanuel Moore, where does he live? — A. He lives northwest of town. 

Q. About how far? — ^A. About 4 miles. 

Q. About how many miles north and how many west? — ^A. He lives 2 miles 
north and 2 west. 

Q. Where does Andrew Garrett live? — A. Oh, about a half mile south and a 
mile west of Luther. 

Q. John Patterson, where does he live? — A. I don't know. 

Q. Where does R. H. Sheldon live? — A. I don't know where he lives. 

Q. Where does Isaac Armstrong live? — ^A. He lives 1 mile south and 2 miles 
west. 

Q. Frank Mayer, where does he live? — ^A. He lives northeast of town some- 
where, but I don't know exactly where he does live. 

Q. C. Fox, where does he live? — ^A. I don't know. 

Q. Now, was there any great disturbance there through election day? — ^A. 
■ No, sir. 

Q. Were you threatened with any physical injury if you didn't let these 
negroes vote? — A. No, sir. 

Q. These ballots of these 15 negroes, or however many there were, were 
placed on a separate string, were they not by you?— A. No, sir. 

Q. Were their ballots marked protested? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who did string them on a separate string? — A. If they were strung on a 
separate string the counters done it. 

Q. Who marked them protested? — A. I. 

Q. Who protested them? — A. The clerk of the inspector. 

Q. And you wrote " Protested " on the ballots? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Yes, sir. — A. Yes, sir ; and the number 

Q. You wrote that word " Protested " on the ballots of all those who the 
inspector did not consider could pass the test required by the grandfather 
clause? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And if the word "protest" appears only on nine of these ballots that 
would be all that was really — that weren't able to pass the test? — A. No; 
because we didn't write on them all. There were 14 or 15 of them that didn't 
get through, and I think I wrote " Protested " on every one of them, but I 
don't know. 

Q. How many negroes were tested and turned down? — A. Not let to vote 
at all? 

Q. Yes. — A. Just one. 

Q. Were you present the other day when Mr. Vorel testified? — A. Yes, sir; 
I was here. There was only one man that we turned down that didn't vote 
at all. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

A. Mr. Vorel, I think, was mistaken in his name. He thought it was 
Emanuel Moore, but it was a fellow by the name of Hill. 

Mr. Morgan. We move to strike out the evidence as not being in response to 
any question asked the witness. 

A. All right. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Mr. DoRTCH. That is all, Mr. Moore. 



CAEISTEY VS. MOEGAE-. 69 

Hearing adjourned until 1.30 p. m. 
1.30 p. m., Iiearing resumed. 

Mr. WM. H. SEILBR, called to the stand, and being first duly sworn by the 
notary, testified as follows, to wit : 

Direct examination by Mr. Doetch : 

Q. State your name. — A. Wm. H. Seller. 

Q. Where do you live? — A. In Spring Creek precinct; Yukon, route 3, is the 
post-otHce address. 

Q. That is in Oklahoma County, is it? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you lived tliere? — A. About 15 years, I think. 

Q. Did you hold any official position during November, 1912, election in this 
county — A. Yes, sir ; I was inspector. 

Q. In that precinct? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. I will hand you contestant's E'xhibits A and B and ask you if, previous to 
the election, you received similar circulars? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee hereby objects to the question for the reason that it 
has not been shown that the contestee, or anyone by or for him, composed, sent, 
or had distributed, in any manner whatsoever, circulars similar to Exhibits A 
and B, and for the further reason that there are no statements or allegations 
contained in the contestant's notice of contest concerning the conduct of the 
election in Spring Creek Township precinct, Oklahoma County, State of 
Oklahoma. 

A. Why I am certain I received B but I am not certain about A. 

Q. How did you receive it?^ — ^,'V. Through the mail. 

Q. Do you know who sent it? — A. Well it was signed by Boardman, United. 
States attorney, so I supposed it came from that office. 

Q. Do you know whether or not the other election officials in that precinct 
received similar circulars? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that for the reason it is not been shown that 
this contestee, or anyone by him or for him sent circulars similar to these ex- 
hibits marked A and B or had sent circulars similar to Exhibits A and B. 

A. If the others received similar one? I could not say, I could not say 
whether they did or not. 

Mr. DORTCH. That is all. 

Cross examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Seiler, you say this letter was— that you received was signed by 
Boardman? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, was it signed by him personally, with ink and pen? — ^A. No, sir. 

Q. It was just the print? — A. Just the print; yes, sir. 

Q. Just like that, and that is the only reason that you presume that it came 
from his office? — ^A. That would be the only reason. 

Q You don't know that is came from his office? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did the envelope in which it came have his return card on it? — ^A. I could 
not say. 

Q. There was nothing in the envelope or on the outside of the envelope to 
indicate that it came from Dick T. Morgan or from his campaign committee? — 
A. Well. I don't think that I noticed that particularly, no. 

Q. When did you receive Exhibit A or when did you receive the circular 
similar to Exhibit A there?— A. Well I am noc certain whether I received that 
]5xhibit A. The second one. I believe you have them. 

Q. Exhibit B, that is the letter?— A. Yes. 

Q. When did you receive that? — ^A. Oh, it might have been a week or three 
or four days before the election. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the entire evidence of this 
witness for the reason that there are no statements or allegation contained 
in the contestant's notice of contest respecting the conduct of the election 
in Spring Creek Township precinct in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, 
or that the witness as inspector received such circulars, similar to Exhibits 
A and B and are incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 
, Mr. DoRTCH. That is all. 

Wm. H. Seiler. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of April, 1913. 

[SEAL.] Mart S. Hill, Notary PuUic. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 



70 CAENEY VS. MOEGA]^. 

Mr. E. A. RINGOLD, recalled to the stand, testified as follows, to wit : 
Direct examination by Mr. Doetch : 

Q. You have been sworn? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You are the secretary of the county election board of Oklahoma County, 
Okla.?— A. I am. 

Q. As such secretary have you had in your possession or under your control 
the returns of the vote cast in the November, 1912, election in this county for 
Member of Congress? — A. How is that? 

Q. The total vote. — ^A. I have had in my possession the record of the total 
vote cast. 

Q. Have you that record still? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Produce it, please. I wish you would examine your record and give the 
total vote cast in Oklahoma County at the November, 1912, election for Dick T. 
Morgan for Member of Congress. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
and for the further reason that the record from which the witness is about 
to testify has not been properly identified or proven. 

Q. You made those entries yourself, did you, Mr. Ringold? — A. These? 
Yes, sir. 

Q. From what did yon make these records? — A. From the ofiicial returns of 
the various precincts of the county. 

Q. Now, please give the total vote. — ^A. Five thousand nine hundred and 
thirty-two for Morgan, Dick T. Morgan. 

Q. Please give the total votes cast for John J. Carney. — A. Six thousand 
eight hundred and seventy-two. Do you want the Socialist vote in that race? 

Q. No ; I don't want it. Mr. Ringold, do you know in what precinct in 
Oklahoma there are negro voters? — A. I can name the precincts where the 
heavy negro vote is, but there is a small scattering vote in a number of pre- 
cincts in this city. 

Q. Name the precincts in which the heavy vote is. — ^A. Precinct 6 of ward 2, 
precinct 9 of ward 2, precinct 9 of ward 3, I believe constitute the precincts, 
and precinct S of ward 2 there are some negro votes. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the evidence of 
the witness as relative to precinct 9 of ward 3 and precinct 8 of ward 2 for 
the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and tend- 
ing to prove or disprove any of the issues in this case, there being no state- 
ments or allegations in the contestant's notice of contest regarding the conduct 
of election in said precincts or that any negroes voted in said precincts who were 
not qualified to vote under the grandfather clnuse. 

Q. Can you turn to your record and show the total votes cast each for John 
J. Carney and Dick T. Morgan in precinct 6 of the second ward? — A. Yes. sir. 
Precinct 6, ward 2, J. J. Carney received 70 votes, Dick T. Morgan 109 votes. 

Q. What does your record show as to precinct 9 of the second ward? — A. 
That J. J. Carney received 70 votes, Dick T. Morgan 151 votes. 

Q. What does your records show as to precinct 9 of the third ward? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, there 
being no statements or allegations contained in contestant's notice of contest 
regarding the conduct .of the election in precinct 9 of the third ward of Okla- 
homa County, State of Oklahoma, or that any illegal votes were cast therein. 

A. In precinct 9 of ward 3 J. J. Carney received 191 votes ; Dick T. Morgan, 
142 votes. 

Q. In precinct S of the second ward? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects for the reason that there 
are no statements or allegation contained in the contestant's notice of contest 
respecting conduct of election in said precinct 8 of the second ward or that 
any illegal votes were cast therein for the contestee herein, and for the reason 
that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. In precinct 8 of ward 2 J. J. Carney received 119 votes; Dick T. Morgan, 
90 votes. 

Q. Have you with you in your possession the stubs of the ballots cast in 
precinct 6 of the second ward? — ^A. I have. 

Q. Where have those stubs been since the election, Mr. Ringold? — A. They 
have been locked in the boxes in the room on the west side of the courthouse 
which has been set aside for the election paraphernalia — the election supplies. 

Q. Is that in accordance with the laws of the State of Oklahoma as to the 
keeping of these ballots? 



CAEZsTEY VS. MOEGAN. 71 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as calling for tlie conclusion of the witness — 
callins; for an opinion also of the witness. 

A. it is. 

Q. Who has had the keys for these boxes? — ^A. At the time of the canvass 
of the returns from the various precincts of Oklahoma County the boxes were 
left intact in the room set aside for that purpose, each box being locked and 
the keys put in an envelope marked with the respective precincts and wards to 
which they belonged, and the inner door of this room, being a wire door sep- 
arating the rear room from the front part of the room, was locked by the 
members of the county election board by running a chain through the wires 
of this door, and after being locked the key was left in my possession. 

Q. It has been in your possession continuously, has it? — ^A. When I under- 
took to obey the order of the court and bring tliese records into the court as 
ordered I find another chain and lock on this wire door, and the lock which 
this board had originally left on there had by some means been unlocked and 
was left hanging on the right-hand side of the door as you come in. In order 
to obtain possession of these records I filed the chain of the new lock which I 
found on the door, and have no knowledge of who put it on there nor as to 
whom has the key to the same. Does that answer all that? 

Mr. Morgan. The other lock had been opened? 

A. My lock had been sprung and put on the right side of the wire door and 
the new lock put on. I don't know who put it on nor who has the key for it. 
That was this morning. 

Mr. DoRTCH. Do those stubs, Mr. Ringold, show the names of the voters in 
those respective precincts? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the witness testifying 
concerning what these stubs show, for the reason that the witness has already 
testified that the lock which he placed on the door to the room, or that part 
of the room where these records from which he is about to testify were placed 
by him were found by him this morning sprung and the lock which he had 
placed thereon hanging off to one side, thus showing that there has been oppor- 
tunity for a tampering with the records, and that the records have not been 
kept safe from alteration or mutilation or change. 

Mr. DoRTCH. I will withdraw that question right now. 

Q. Since taking these ballot stubs out you have examined them, have you, 
Mr. Ringold? — A. I have not further than just the label on the different stubs 
to see to which precinct and ward they belonged. 

Q. Do you see any evidence that they have been tampered with? — A. I do not. 

Q. Do these ballot stubs show the names of the respective voters in various 
precincts? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee objects to the question and to the giving of any 
answer in respect thereto, for the reason that the witness has already testified 
that the lock with which these election paraphernalia and books and records 
had been kept, or the room where these election records have been kept, has been 
sprung — taken off the wire door leading into the same — thus giving oppor- 
tunity for a change or alteration of the election records, and said witness's testi- 
mony showing that the records have not been kept under lock and key since 
the time they were placed there by him, or securely protected since that time. 

A. Each stub shows a name and address which to the best of my knowledge 
was a voter — was an elector of that precinct — and the party to whom the ballot 
was issued. 

Mr. DoRTCH. Contestant now offers in evidence ballot stubs for precinct 6 of 
the second ward and asks that same be marked " Exhibit F " for identification. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the same being offered 
in evidence for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and imma- 
terial and is not the best evidence of the names of the voters or those voting 
at the said election, and for the further reason that the testimony of this witness 
shows that the lock with which he locked the room, or that part of the room 
in which that record has been kept, was found by him to have been sprung 
and unlocked this morning when he went to get these records, and whereby there 
has been given opportunity to change, alter, or mutilate said records, and that 
the said witness's testimony shows that — or fails to show — that the said 
records have been securely protected since the time they were placed therein by 
him and the remainder of the county election board, and there has been no evi- 
dence offered to rebut the presumption that the same have been tampered with 
since that time. 

(Exhibits marked "F.") 



72 CAEXEY VS. MORGAlSr. 

Mr. DoETCH. I just iutroduced down to where tlie ballots are attached, and 

we introduce the last page. 

Mr. Morgan. To which the contestee makes the same objection as last above 
stated. 

Q. Have you the ballot stubs for precinct 9 of the second ward? — ^A. I have. 

Mr. DoRTCH. Contestant now offers in evidence the ballot stubs of precinct 9 
of the second ward down to the full sheet and including the last page, showing 
the certificate. 

Mr. Morgan. To which the contestee objects, for the reason that the same are 
incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and have not been properly identified 
or proven, and for the further reason that the testimony of this witness shows 
that the lock which was on that part of the room in which said record has been 
kept since the time it was deposited there by the witness and by the other mem- 
bers of the county election board is shown to have been sprung and the said 
door unlocked, thus opportunity having been given for the changing or altering 
or mutilating the same, and said witness not having testified to sufficient to 
rebut the presumption that the same have not been kept safely since the election 
time and have been tampered with. 

(Marked "Exhibit G.") 

Q. Have you the ballot stubs of precinct 9 of the third ward? — A. I have. 

Q. Those are they, are they? — ^A. Yes. sir. 

Mr. DoETCH. Contestant now offers in evidence the ballot stubs of precinct 
9 of the third ward. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the receiving of the 
same in evidence for the reason that the same are incompetent, irrelevant, and 
immaterial, and for the futher reason that no statements or allegations are 
made in the contestant's notice of contest respecting the conduct of the election 
in said precinct 9 of the third ward or the votes therein or the validity of 
the voters in easting the ballots in said precinct, and for the further reason 
that the testimony of the witness shows that the room In which said records 
have been kept has not been locked during the entire time and that opportunity 
has been given to alter, mutilate, change the said record, and that there has 
been no showing that said records have not been tampered with. 

(Marked "Exhibit H.") 

Q. Have you the ballot stubs of precinct 7 of the third ward? — A. I have. 

Mr. Morgan. Seventh of the third? 

Q. Yes. Are they those? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DoETCH. Comes now the contestant and offers in evidence the stubs of 
the ballots of precinct 7 of ward 3 cast in the last general election. 

Mr. Morgan. To which the contestee objects as incompetent, irrelevant, and 
immaterial, and for the reason that there are no statements or allegations 
contained in the contestant's notice of contest respecting the conduct of the 
election in said precinct 7 of ward 3 of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, 
State of Oklahoma, nor respecting the validity of the ballots or the qualifi- 
cations of the voters in said precinct, and for the further reason that the evi- 
dence of the witness shows that the room in which said records have been 
kept was found by him this morning when he went to get said records to be — 
when he got them there — change all that — the evidence of the witness showing 
that the lock that the witness and other members of the county election board 
had placed on the door of that part of the room where the said records had 
been kept was found this morning by the witness to have been sprung and 
unlocked, and there having been no showing that there has not been oppor- 
tunity to change, alter, or mutilate the said records. 

(Marked "Exhibit I.") 

Q. Have you in your possession the stubs of the ballots of precinct 1 of the 
fourth ward of the last election in this city? — A. I have. 

Q. Is that it?— A. It is. 

Mr. Dortcii. Contestant now offers in evidence the ballot stubs showing the 
names and addresses of the voters and the number of votes cast in precinct 1 
of the fourth ward in the November, 1912, election. 

Mr. Morgan. To which the contestee objects as being incompetent, irrelevant, 
and immaterial, and for the further reason that there are no statements or 
allegations contained in the contestant's notice of contest respecting the conduct 
of the election in said precinct or as regards the qualification of the voters who 
voted in that precinct at said election. And for the further reason that the 
testimony of the witness shows that the lock with which he and the other 



CAKN"EY VS. MOEGAIST. 73 

members of the election board locked the room in which said records have been 
kept was found by him this morning to have been sprung and hung to one side, 
this opportunity having been given to change, alter, and mutilate the said 
records, and for the further reason there has been no showing that since said 
election the said ballots have not been tampered with or changed and there has 
been no evidence showing that — and for the reason that there has been no 
evidence showing that said records have been securely kept under lock and key 
and securely protected since said election. 

Mr. DoRTCH. Contestant asks that the exhibit be marked for identification. 

(Marked "Exhibit J.") 

Q. I wish you would take the record that you made as secretary of the county 
election board and compare that record with the ballot stubs introduced in evi- 
dence and see whether or not the two are the same. — A. (Witness examines.) 
If you will pardon me there — the ballot stubs? I didn't intend for you to take 
this down. You see, there are the ballot stubs, and we are comparing with the 
official returns in the back of the ballot books. 

Q. I will change the question to the official returns in the back of the book. — 
A. The official returns shown in the back of the book of ballots now in evidence 
is the same as the records of the county election board which was made from 
the official returns delivered to this board by the precinct inspectors at the time 
of delivering their return. 

Mr. DoRTCH. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Ringold. look at the record in the back of the ballot stubs there of 
these books, and what therefrom is the votes between John J. Carney and Dick 
T. Morgan in precinct 9 of ward 2? — A. Carney, 70; Morgan, 151. 

Q. Precinct 9 of ward 3? — A. Are you going to take that all? 

Q. Yes.— A. Call for 6 of ward 2, then. 

Q. All right— 6 of ward 2?— A. Carney, 70; Morgan, 109. 

Q. 1 of 4?— A. Carney, 144; Morgan, 136. 

Q. 7 of 3?— A. Carney, 220; Morgan, 122. 

Q. 9 of 3?— A. Carney, 191; Morgan, 142. 

Q. Now, turn to the record that you kept and give me the vote there. — A. Yon 
Lave that right ahead of that. 

Q. All right ; shorten that — give me 1 of 4. — ^A. You want the vote cast in 
1 of 4? 

Q. As between Carney and Morgan.— A. Carney, 144; Morgan, 136. 

Q. And in 7 of 3.— A. Carney, 220 ; Morgan, 122. 

Q. Mr. Ringold, to what political party do you belong? — ^A. The Democratic 
Party. 

Q. Now, Mr. Ringold, do you know the political affiliation of these various 
inspectors and judges and clerks — most of them? — A. I don't know whether 
that is — let's see — that is, if I would name them to you, you would know whether 
or not they are Republicans or Democrats, wouldn't you? — ^A. I would not know 
who they cast their ballots for. 

Q. But you would know to what political party they belonged generally and 
with which political party they generally affiliated? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In political matters? — A. I would know the party with which the majority 
of them is supposed to belong to — the party affiliated with. 

Q. Are you acquainted with J. W. Sorrels? — A. I am. 

Q. To what political party does he belong, if you know? — ^A. I suppose he is 
a Democrat. 

Q. And F. L. Clerk, clerk in ward. 2. precinct 6, with what political party is he 
affiliated? — ^A. I am not acquainted with him. 

Q. J. E. Lucas, to what political party does he belong? — ^A. He is supposed 
to be a Democrat. 

Q. Mr. Frank Redding, Crutcho Township? — A. I don't know him personally. 

Q. E. A. Wagner, a little fat fellow? — ^A. I am not personally acquainted with 
him. 

Q. J. N. Spear, Choctaw Township?— A. He is supposed to be a Democrat. 

Q. Thos. J. Clark. Dewey Township, the clerk of the Dewey Township?— A. I 
am not personally acquainted with him. 

Q. Do you know W. I. Davis?— A. I do. 

Q. To what political party does he belong?— A. He is supposed to be a 
Democrat. 



74 CABNEY VS. MOKGAIsT. 

Q. Mr. E. Needbam, in Greeley Township, to wliat political party does lie 
belong? — A. Supposed to be a Democrat. 

Q. And J. E. Parks, of Hartzell Township? — A. He is supposed to be a 
Democrat. 

Q. And C. B. Jack, clerk of Hartzell Township? — A. I am not acquainted 
with him. 

Q. Louis Vorel, inspector in Luther Township, to what political party does 
he belong? — ^A. He is supposed to be a Democrat. 

Q. And D. B. Moore? — A. I am not personally acquainted with him. 

Q. O. H. Ray, of Luther City? — A. He is supposed to be a Democrat. 

Q. H. E. Norman, Luther City? — A. I am not personally acquainted with him. 

Q. M. S. Baker, Oklahoma A Township, to what political party does he be- 
long? — ^A. He was recommended as a Democrat. 

Q. And H. F. Ballard, of the same township? — A. I am not persouallj 
acquainted with him. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Mr. DORTCH. That is all. 

E. A. RiNGOLD. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of April, 1913. 

[seal.] Maey S. Hill, Notary Puhlic. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the enlire testi- 
mony of the witness, together with all exhibits introduced as identified by him, 
for the reason that the same are incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial ; and 
for the further reason that no statements or allegations were made in the 
contestant's notice of contest respecting any of the election precincts except 
precinct 6 of ward 2 and precinct 9 of ward 2 in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 
County, State of Oklahoma ; and for the further reason that the testimony of 
the witness shows that the lock upon that part of the room in which the said 
records so identified by him have been kept since the county election board 
finished their tabulation of the vote for November, 1912, election was found 
by him this morning, when he went to get the records, sprung, the witness 
testifying that he didn't know how long the same had been unlocked, said 
testimony showing that there has been opportunity for a change, mutilation, 
or alteration of the records, and said evidence showing that the said election 
records have not been kept safely and securely under lock and key since the 
time the county election board finished tabulation of the votes or vote in 
Oklahoma County. 

And thereupon, by consent of parties, the further hearing of the case was 
continued until to-morrow at 1.30 p. m. 

February 12, 1913, 1.30 p. m., hearing resumed. 

Three witnesses duly sworn by the notary public to testify the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

Mr. W. W. BARKER, called to the stand, testified as follows, to Avit : 
Direct examination by E. J. Giddings : 

Q. You may state your name. — ^A. W. W. Barker. 

Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Barker? — A. Springer Township, Jones City. 

Q. How long have you resided there? — A. About 15 years. 

Q. That is in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, is it?— A. Yes, sir; on 
the east side of the county. 

Q. What is your business? — A. I am a carpenter by trade. 

Q. Did you occupy any official position at the last general election held 
within the State of Oklahoma, on the 5th of November, 1912?— A. I was clerk 
of the board. 

Q. Did you occupy a similar position to that at any time? — A. I think it has 
been about six years. 

Q. You have been clerk? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know how many negroes voted in that precinct at the last general 
election? — A. I don't know that I can give you the exact number. 

Q. To the best of your knowledge.— A. Oh, I would say in the neighborhood 
of 60 — right close to it — might possibly have been a few more, might be a few 
less, but that won't miss it far, though, Gid. 



CAENET VS. MOKGAN. • 75 

Q. Previous to the holding of that election did you receive similar circulars 
to Exhibits A and B here handed you? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, 
and not having been first shown that the contestee herein composed, sent, or 
distributed in any manner whatsoever circulars similar to those handed to 
the witness or that anyone for him or by his authority did so. And I want to 
ask, pardon me, but did this witness say he was inspector out there in Springer? 

Q. Clerk, answer the question. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did you receive them? — A. Through the mail. 

Q. Who was inspector out there? — A. H. S. Lowp. 

Q. Do you know why he is not here to-day? — A. He is sick; down with pneu- 
monia. 

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Lowp, who was inspector at the last election, 
also received those circulars? 

Mr. MoEGAN. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Yes, sir. Every member of the board got the same thing. 

Q. Do you know what effect that had in the enforcement of — strike that — 
do you know what effect those circulars had in the enforcement of what was 
commonly called the grandfather clause; that is to say, what effect it had on 
the election officers of that precinct? 

Mr. jNIorgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
calling for the conclusion of the witness. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
calling for the conclusion and opinion of the witness. 

A. We permitted them all to vote. 

Q. Who do you mean by all ? — ^A. All the colored voters ; everybody who asked 
for a ticket got it. 

Q. Why were you afraid to enforce the grandfather clause down there? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
and assuming a state of facts not proven. 

A. Well, most all of them were familiar with the condition out here, of the 
conviction of two or three fellows on the election board at Enid. 

Mr. Morgan. We move to strike that as not responsive to the question 
asked the witness and as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. I think they all had the same fear of the same thing. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the answer of 
the witness as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and not responsive to 
any question propounded to the witness. 

Q. Do you know what the political faith of those negroes was? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. They would just vote one way. 

Q. And what way? — A. Eepublican. 

Q. Do you know any negro out there who voted the Democratic ticket? — • 

A. (Laughs.) No. 

Q. If it hadn't been for the receipt of those communications and for the fear 
of Federal prosecution, as you have testified, and you had been permitted to en- 
force the grandfather clause — that portion of the election laws — what would 
have been the result in that township ; that is to say, would it have changed the 
result in that precinct? — A. I think that ■ 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute, we object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, 
and immaterial, and assuming a state of facts not proven, and calling for the 
conclusion and opinion of the witness. 

A. I think knock the black right out of the law. 

Q. What effect did that have on the result in that precinct between the dif- 
ferent candidates for office; would it have been Democratic or Republican? 

Mr. Morgan. The same objection as last heretofore given. 

A. I see the question — it would have meant the number I gave you — 60 
challenged — cut out. 

Q. Would it have had the eflfect of changing the result in that precinct? — ^A. 
Oh, sure, sure. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
and assuming a state of facts not proven. 

A. Yes, sir ; yes, sir. 



76 CAEISTEY VS. MOKGAN. 

Q. Do you know most of tliose negroes out there? — A, Pretty well acquainted 
witli them. 

Q. Do you know whether all of them were capable of reading a portion of 
the State constitution of Oklahoma and writing a portion thereof? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Quite a number of them isn't. 

Q. Did they vote anyway? — A. They all voted. 

Q. Did you have any trouble about getting anybody to serve on the board down 
there on account of the letters and prosecution? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. We move to strike that as incompetent, irrelevant, and im- 
material, there being no allegation in the contestant's notice of contest concern- 
ing any alleged difficulty in securing officers to officiate at the November, 1912, 
election. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State what it was. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
and for the reason that there are no statements or allegations contained in the 
contestant's notice of contest respecting any alleged difficulty in securing officials 
to serve. 

A. Mr. Lowp, who has been, I think, in the same place, I think, for 8 or 10 
years, and he was about to quit — to resign — in dread of the Federal law. 

Q. Is he a married man? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

Q. Were you at that time a married man? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A man of family? — A. Yes. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Take the witness. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Barker, where do you live? — A. Jones City. 

Q. In Jones City? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What do you do there? — A. My trade is carpenter. 

Q. You say there were about 60 negroes voted there in Springer Township? — 
A. I think that is about right; yes. 

Q. And you are personally acquainted with all of them, are you? — ^A. Most of 
them ; yes. I have been there 15 years and done business with most of them, 
unless those who came in in the last year or two ; maybe I haven't acquired an 
acquaintance with them of any great extent. 

Q. I will ask you, Mr. Barker, what sort of a building was the election held 
in out there in Jones? — A. You mean what, the construction? 

Q. How many rooms, if there was more than one? — A. Yes; we held the 
election in the back end of an old building there that was occupied by a bank; 
the clerks were in one room ; that is, the counting clerks. 

Q. How is that? — A. The counting clerks were off in one room themselves, 
but the doors were all open to the back room where they was voting in the booth. 

Q. Were you in the room in which Mr. Lowp was located that day? — A. Well, 
no ; I had an old counter back there that I was using for a desk, and the room 
was small where I was; and where the room they voted in was small, and we 
cut it up so they could set the booth right in the middle of the floor. 

Q. So you were not actually in the room where Mr. Lowp was located? — ^A. 
A good many times ; yes, sir ; a good many times. 

Q. During the entire day? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who was it tested the negroes, Mr. Lowp or yourself? — A- Mr. Lowp 
would test them when they asked for a ticket. 

Q. What sort of test would he apply to these negroes who presented them- 
selves? — A. He would ask them if they could read and write. 

Q. If they would say they could, would he pass them? — A. No; he generally 
put them under test. 

Q. Put all of them under test? — A. And then he would pass them out 

Q. You say all the negroes who voted there were tested by Mr. Lo^vp 
according to the best of your knowledge? — A. Yes; I think they was. 

Q. Did you turn any of them down? — ^A. No. 

Q. But he did test them all ? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And had them write some part of the constitution of the State of Okla- 
homa? — A. No; I think he had them to read, mostly. 

Q. Now, do you know of any negro who was allowed to vote who can not read 
and write? — A. Oh, sure. 

Q. And yet you say Mr. Lowp tested them all? — ^A. Sure. 



CAKlIiJ'EY VS. MORGAN. 77 

Q. To what political party do you belong, Mr. Barker? — ^A. Well, I liave been 
connected with the Democratic Party — identified with them. 

Q. Ever since you became of voting age? — A. Yes; but I wasn't raised in that 
faith ; my father was a Republican ahead of me, but I could not go it. 

Q. Now, Mr. Barker, was there any disturbance there on election day among 
the negroes — any trouble of any sort? — A. No. 

Q. No threats of personal violence made against you or Mr. Lowp if you 
didn't let the negroes vote? — A. By whom? 

Q. By the negroes or by anyone? — ^A. No. 

Q. You heard nothing of that kind? — A. No. 

Q. When did you get these Exhibits A and B? — A. Just ia day or two before 
election. 

Q. There was nothing on the envelope in which they came to indicate that 
they came from this contestee, Dick T. Morgan? — A. Well, now, I would not 
want to say. 

Q. As a matter of fact, they came in an envelope upon which there was no 
return card whatever; is that not true? — A. What do you mean; printed on 
the corner return? 

Q. Yes. — A. It might have been there and me not see it. I didn't, and I don't 
know whether it was or not; I would not want to say as to that. 

Q. Now, Mr. Barker, what was the procedure in the voting there that day? 
These negroes would come up to Mr. Lowp, and he would test them, and then 
he would signal? — ^A. No, no. 

Q. In some manner to you ? — ^A. No ; the first thing they would come to me 
and ask for tickets, and then Harry would generally follow right in with them. 

Q. Who was Harry? — A. H. S. Lowp, and he would ask them question. Do 
you boys read and write? And if a man could 

Q. And then he 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Let him answer the question. 

A. If one could he would say yes, and if one couldn't he would say no. 

Q. You say Mr. Lowp is very sick with typhoid fever or pneumonia? — ^A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. How long has he been sick? — A. A couple of weeks. 

Q. Isn't he better? — A. Well, some days he is. He was better yesterday and 
thought he would come this morning, and when I left him he wasn't able to get 
out of bed. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. You mean by testing them they would say yes, they could read and write, 
or something like that, and that would be about all the test that Lowp would 
apply to them? — A. If a man would tell he could read and write, Harry is like 
I am ; he knows most of them ; he has loaned them money and taken their 
notes, and he pretty nearly knows; he is pretty well posted. 

Q. But he wouldn't apply the strict test of the grandfather clause to them? — 
A. No, no ; he didn't have none of them to write, but reading — if he doubted 
a man could read, he would let him try it. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Now, Mr. Barker, those whom Mr. Lowp knew could read and write — 
he didn't apply the test to those? — A. Well, as I told you, he would ask all of 
them, and I don't think he missed any of them on that. 

Q. Now, the negroes he knew could read and write from his previous expe- 
rience with them — he didn't test them? Now, all the rest of the negroes who 
votes there that day were required by him to read, you say — that is right, 
isn't it?— A. No. 

Q. That is what I understood you to testify. — ^A. No ; I don't think he missed 
any of them much on the reading. 

Q. He required all of them to read? — A. He might have passed one or two, 
maybe, but he was just as familiar with them — some of them were school- 
teachers, you know. 

Q. Now, the rest outside of those school-teachers — he had all of them read? — 
A. All of those who voted. 

Mr. Giddings. We object to that question as a misstatement. 

A. Yes ; he would have them read ; if they started ofC all right, he would tell 
them to stop. 



78 CAENEY VS. M0KGA2S". 

Q. If they started to read, he would stop them? — A. Yes; just enough to con- 
vince him, is all. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. That is all. 
Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

W. W. Barkee. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of April, 1913. 

[seal.] Mary S. Hill, 'Notary Public. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

Mr. F. H. MORRIS, called to the stand, and being previously sworn, testified 
as follows, to wit : ^ 

Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. State your name. — A. F. H. Morris. 

Q. Where do you live? — ^A. Arcadia. 

Q. How long have you lived at Arcadia ? — A. About seven years, I believe. 

Q. What is your business? — A. Mercantile business. 

Q. What township in Oklahoma County, Okla., is Arcadia in? — A. Deep Fork. 

Q. Did you occupy any official position at the last general election in Deep 
Fork Township, Oklahoma County, Okla.? — A. Clerk of the election board. 

Q. Had you occupied that position previous to that time? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many negroes voted in that precinct, to the best of your knowledge, 
at the last general election? — A. Let me see — about 70 per cent of the Repub- 
lican vote there is negroes, and I don't know what the Republican vote is; 
I can't i-emember it from time to time. It is probably, though, about 135 or 140 
Republican votes, and I think there is at least 70 per cent of them negroes. 

Q. Do you know of any negro there who voted the Democratic ticket at the 
last genei'al election? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Previous to the last general election, in 1912, did you receive any circulars 
similar to Exhibits A and B, handed you here? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you receive them? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that move to strike the evidence of the witness 
for the reason that tlie same is incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and not 
having been shown that the contestee herein sent the circulars similar to this 
witness, or that they were sent, if they were sent, by his knowledge, with his 
knowledge, or for him. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. I think the day before the election, I believe 
it was. 

Q. What effect, if any, did these circulars have upon you in the enforcement 
of the election laws of the State of Oklahoma? 

Mr. Morgan. That is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
calling for the conclusion of the witness and the opinioii of the witness. 

A. Well, I simply didn't want to try to enforce the grandfather clause in the 
state it was in with those threats over me. 

Q. Were you a married man at that time? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. A man of family? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Besides your wife? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know most of these negroes in that township? — ^A. Yes, sir; I 
don't think there is a one I don't know. 

Q. If you could have enforced this law in that township, would it have made 
a difference in the result? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
calling for the conclusion of the witness and a computation. 

A. Yes, sir ; no doubt about it. 

Q. Which way? — ^A. It would have given the Democrats the majority. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that and move to strike the same from the record 
for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and a 
conclusion of the witness. 

Q. Did you see any of these negroes tested there by making them read and 
write thoroughly a portion of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. No ; we didn't put the test to any of them. We asked them if they could 
read and write. 

Q. If they said yes, what was done? — A. Let them vote. 

Q. Do you know whether there is any illiteracy among the negroes in that 
township? 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 79 

Mr. MoEGAN. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. I do ; yes, sir. 

Q. Is there mucli or little? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Why, I believe there is about — I believe there is a third of them fully 
vote according to the law. 

Mr. Morgan. We move to strike that as not responsive to the question pro- 
pounded and incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

Mr. GiDDiNGs. Take the witness. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Morris, this is Deep Fork Township? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q.. You say there is about 135 Republican votes out there in that township? — 
A. Yes, sir; my best recollection somewhere along that neighborhood. 

Q. And your guess is that 70 per cent of those are negroes? 

Mr. Giddings. We object to the guess and as assuming a state of facts not 
proven because the witness has not guessed at it. Answer the question. 

A. What is the question? 

(Question read.) 

A. About 70 per cent. 

Q. Now, did you understand, Mr. Morris, that under the laws of the State 
of Oklahoma and the grandfather clause in particular that it was your duty 
to enforce the grandfather clause there, or was that not rather the duty of 
the inspector, Mr. Burnsworth? — ^A. Well, it is the inspector's duty to qualify 
a voter, I believe. 

Q. How many negroes voted that day? — A. I think every one in the township. 

Q. You think every one in the township? — A. I think they were all there — I 
mean every negro who was old enough to vote. Let me modify that. I know 
there is one negro didn't vote, and there is one negro who has never voted 
since this law went into effect. 

Q. Who is he? — A. Isaac Rogers. 

Q. Did Mr. Burnsworth — how long has he lived in that township? — ^A. I 
-don't know. 

Q. Now, the negroes as they came up to Mr. Burnsworth were first asked by 
him whether or not they could read and write? — A. How is that? 

Q. The negroes when they first came up to vote were asked by Mr. Burns- 
worth, as I understand it, whether they could read and write? — A. No; I think 
I handled the ballots, and I believe I asked that question myself before I gave 
them the ballots — most of the time. 

Q. And if they said they could read and write you gave them the ballot, did 
you? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And neither Mr. Burnsworth or yourself applied any further test to 
them? — ^A. No, sir. 

Q. Now, were there any negroes who were tested that day by Mr. Burnsworth 
or by yourself?— A. Yes, sir; I think we put the test to about two or three, 
beginning in the morning. 

Q. Did they pass the test all right? — ^A. No, sir; we turned them down — 
until late in the afternoon. 

Q. Until late in the afternoon, then you let them vote? — ^A. Yes; they got 
boisterous and we thought we would pass them in. 

Q. Who got boisterous? — ^A. The negroes and the white people together. 
We had a little trouble. 

Q. What were the names of these two or three you tested and turned down? — 
A. I don't remember ; yes, I can give you one of them. Maybe I can give you 
two. Fred Trent and Anderson Harrison; and I don't know whether there was 
another one or not, but I think — I don't remember his name. 

Q. Those were the only two that were tested that day? — A. We quit applying 
the test from that time on. 

Q. Do you know Sam Fain? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did he vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did Bob Harris vote?— A. I don't recall Bob Harris, but I know we let 
all of them vote ; I could not tell you as to Bob Harris. 

Q. What about Henry Burton? — ^A. He voted. 

Q. How about Henry Grissom?— A. Henry Grissom voted— now to the best 
of my knowledge he voted; I know him very well, and I don't think we missed 
him on that day. I think he was right there; we generally have the same 
Tounds with that bunch every election. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 



80 CAENET VS. MORGAN. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. Ton say tliey got boisterous out there in tbe afternoon and you let them 
vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was the temper of tbose negroes out there that day ; was it sullen, 
moody, or was it even temperate? 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the question and the 
answer thereto for the reason that no statements or allegations were contained 
in the contestant's notice of contest to the alleged effect that the negroes in any 
township in the district or any voting precinct or district were sullen or 
boisterous or threatening in their attitude and for the reason that the same 
is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. Well, after declining these two negroes in the morning there after they 
begun to get loud and in the afternoon we could hear them down at the foot 
of the stairs there, and we had three or four come around demanding a ballot 
in a loud tone, getting lilie they were getting pretty rollicky, I call it, right 
around our desk, and they weren't in a very good humor. 

Q. You say the negroes and the white people together got, as you term it, 
boisterous out there; what white people were they. Republicans or Democrats, 
or what? 

Mr. Morgan. We object. 

A. They were Republicans. 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that and move to strike the question and the 
answer for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

Q. Any member of the Republican committee or the Republican organization 
among the number? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. I know who it was, but I don't know whether he was a member of any 
committee or organization or not; I could not say; I would not answer the 
question ; I don't know. 

Mr. Giddings. That is all. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 
Q. Mr. Morris, to what political party do you belong? — A. Democratic. 
Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

F. H. Morris. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2d day of April, 1913. 

[seal.] Mary S. Hill, Notary PuUic. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

Mr. C. E. BURNSWORTH, called to the stand, and being previously duly 
sworn, testified as follows : 

Direct examination by Mr. Giddings : 

Q. What is your name? — ^A. C. E. Burnsworth. 

Q. Where do you live, Mr. Burnsworth? — A. Arcadia. 

Q. What township in Oklahoma County, Okla., is that in?— A. Deep Fork. 

Q. How long have you resided in that township? — ^A. Fifteen years. 

Q. What is your business? — ^A. Farmer. 

Q. Did you occupy any oflScial position in that township at the last general 
election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Held within the State of Oklahoma on November 5, 1912? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What? — ^A. I was inspector of the election board. 

Q. How long had you occupied that position? — A. Oh, I have not been on the 
election board for four years until this year, and I was on the primary and gen- 
eral election both. 

Q. I hand you Exhibits A and B, and I will ask you if, previous to the said 
last general election, you received similar circulars? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, 
and immaterial, there being no showing that the circulars similar to these 
handed to the witness were prepared or written, composed, printed, or mailed by 
the contestee herein or by anyone for him or in his behalf or as agents. 

Q. Answer the question. — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did you receive them? — A. By the mail; through the mail. 

Q. What effect, if any, did the receipt of those circulars have upon you in 
the enforcement of the election laws of the State, and particularly of that por- 
tion thereof commonly known as the grandfather clause? 



CAKXEY VS. MOEGAN. 81 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
and calling for the conclnsion and opinion of tlie witness. 

Q. Answer the question. — A. Oh, it had a tendencj' to weaken us down, of 
course ; we didn't feel like going up against the Federal laws. As a matter of 
fact, we had read about the prosecutions out about Kingfisher, and we were still 
laying again that; we understood that was something similar — the same thing. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the testimony of 
the witness relating to an alleged conviction of parties in Kingfisher County as 
not being responsive to the question and as incompetent, irrelevant, and im- 
material. 

Q. If it hadn't been for the receipt of these communications would you have 
enforced the election laws of Oklahoma at that election in that township? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, calling 
for the conclusion and opinion of the witness. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many negroes voted in that township at the last general election t& 
the best of your knowledge? — A. As nearly as I recollect, about TO. 

Q. What were their political faith ?^A. Republican. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the question and 
the answer for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and im- 
material, no proper foundation having been laid therefor. 

Q. If that provisi(m of the election laws of this State, to wit, what is com- 
monly termed the grandfather clause, had been complied with out there, en- 
forced, would it have changed the result in that })recinct? 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute, you can answer that yes or no. 

A. Yes. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to, and the contestee moves to strike the question and 
answer for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial 
and calling for a conclusion of the witness. 

Q. Now. which way would it have changed the result? 

Mr. Morgan. The contestee objects for the reason that the same is in- 
competent, irrelevant, and immaterial and calls for the conclusion of the 
witness. 

A. It would have throwed it in favor of the Democrat. 

Q. Would the Democrats have carried that township in the event that this 
election had been held under the compliance with the grandfather law? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, calling 
for a conclusion and a computation of the witness. 

A. They may not have carried but they would have come awfully close to it 

Q. Did you compel any of those negroes to read and write a section of the 
Constitution? — ^A. Not at the general election, but at the primary I did. 

Q. At the general election, that is what I am asking about? — A. From the 
simple fact I had tested them at the primary and I knew. 

Q. Those you didn't know about did you test them by making them read 
a section of the Constitution and write it? — A. Well, no. 

Q. Why didn't you? — A. From the simple fact I was threatened with the 
Federal law if I did. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. Take the witness. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Now, you say Mr. Burnsworth you didn't compel all the negroes to read 
and write the Constituticn at the last general election as a test? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Because of the fact you had tested most of them at the primary and 
knew whether or not they could read and write? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. That is right. How many of this 70 that you say voted had been tested 
by you in the primary? — A. I could not say exactly. 

Q. About how many?— A. Well. I put all — most all— of them to the test at the 
primary. 

Q. And those that you had tested at the primary you didn't require the te^ 
of them at the general election in November, 1912?— A. Nothing; only I wouM 
just ask them the question, from the simple fact I remembered whether or not 
the test at the primary. 

Q. Now. then, about how many negroes did you test at the general election? — 
A. I think it was five. 

Q. What was the result of that test?— A. They could not read and -v^rrite, and 
I refused them a ballot. 

4252—13 6 



«>^ CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 

Q. You say you lived out there 15 years?— A Yes sir 
^.?' n?.?'"''^ fi ^^''^^ negroes, practically, don't you?-A. Well most of them ; 
^ -l; if ^.^}^.^ *^®^^ ^^ ^^^^ floaters that comes and goes, but I am acquainted 
with all that is in there any length of time. , ul ± dm dLquamtea 

Q. Do you know Sam Fain? — A. Yes sir 

JreYnZ X oUrSml' ' '"'"' "°°" """' ""' "' '^''' *'™ ""^ "«^ "^W 

Q. Did Fred Trent vote?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did Bob Harris vote?— A. How is that? 

Q. Bob Harris.— A. I don't know him. 

Q. Did a man by the name of Fox vote?— A. I don't know him 

Q. Did Henry Burton? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did Henry Grissom? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, who did this testing out there, Mr. Burnsworth?— A. I did it myself, 
Miost or It. 

Q. So you tested five?— A. I think it was five. 

Q. And turned those down? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the balance of the negroes who voted, vou knew them and had 
tested them at the primary election?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And let them vote. That is all. 

Mr. GiDDiNGs. That is all. 

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Burnsworth, you are a Democrat, are you not' 

A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MoEGAN. That is all. 

Mr. GiDDiNGs. That is all. 

C. E. BUENSWOETH. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of April, 1913. 

f^^^^-^ Mary S. Hill, Notary Public. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

And thereupon, by consent of parties, the hearing of this matter was con- 
tinued until to-morrow afternoon at 1.30. 

February 13, 1913, 1.30 p. m., hearing convened and, by consent of parties 
adjourned until to-morrow morning at 9 o'clock. ' 

February 14. 1913, 9 a. m., hearing convened. 

E. A. RINGOLD recalled to the stand. 
Direct examination by Mr. Dortch : 

Q. Mr. Ringold, as secretary of the county election board, have you any affi- 
davits of challenged voters? — A. I have. 

Q. They were given to you as secretary, were they? — A. They were. 

Q. About how many have you, Mr. Ringold? 

Mr. Morgan. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
and not the best evidence. 

A. Fourteen. 

Q. Those 14 are the original affidavits, are they? — ^A. They are. 

Mr. Dortch. Comes now the contestant and offers in evidence the original 14 
affidavits spoken of by Mr. Ringold and asks that the same be marked for iden- 
lification. 

(Marked Exhibits Kl to K14, inclusive.) 

E. A. Ringold. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 30th day of April, 1913. 

CsEAL.] Mary S. Hill, Notary Public. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and objects to the introduction in evi- 
dence of Kl to K14, inclusive, for the reason that the same are incompetent, 
irrelevant, and immaterial, and are not the best evidence, and for the reason 
that Exhibits K4 to 14, inclusive, are not challenged certificates of challenged 
voters, and for the reasons that there are no statements or allegations contained 
in the contestant's notice of contest respecting any affidavit or any certificates 
of challenged voters, and for the further reason that it has not been shown 
that the said alleged records have been safely kept, for the reason that it has 
not been shown in whose custody or care the said exhibits have been since the 
time that they were placed in the hands of the said witness, and there being 



CAENEY VS. MOKGAN. 83 

no showing that the said exhibits have been safely kept free from opportunity 
for change, mutilation, or alteration; and the contestee objects to the introduc- 
tion in evidence of Exhibit 1 for the reason that the same is incompetent, 
irrelevant, and immaterial, and does not tend to prove or disprove any of the 
statements or allegations contained in the contestant's notice of contest, for the 
reason that the same is not vs^hat it purports to be and is not in the proper or 
legal or lawful form ; and the contestee objects to the introduction in evidence 
of Exhibit 2 for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and imma- 
terial, and for the reason that the same is not signed nor the affiant sworn to 
before any proper officer, and for the reason that the same does not prove or 
tend to prove any of the statements or allegations contained in the contestant's 
notice of contest and is not the best evidence. And the contestee objects to the 
introduction of Exhibit KS for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrele- 
vant, and immaterial, and is not the best evidence, and not certified or sworn to 
before any proper officer. And the contestee objects to the introduction of K4 
for the reason that the same is not competent, relevant, or material, and does 
not prove or tend to prove any statements or allegations contained in the con- 
testant's notice of contest. And for the further reason that the said exhibit 
does not prove or tend to prove a disqualification of the said A. Thomas to vote. 
For the reason that the said exhibit and affidavit K4 contains the statement 
that said A. Thomas's grandfather on his side of the house and on his mother's 
side of the house were white men and legal voters, the said above statement 
showing that A. Thomas was, under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, a legal, 
qualified voter and entitled to vote at the general election held in November, 
1912. And the contestee objects to the introduction in evidence of Exhibit K5 
for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and is 
an ex parte affidavit and is not the best evidence and as a repetition the said 
W. I. Davis having heretofore been called to give evidence before this notary in 
this hearing, and for the reason that the said affidavit is and does not constitute 
any proper return required or allowed by the laws of the State of Oklahoma; 
and the contestee objects to the introduction of Exhibit 6 for the reason that 
the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and does not tend to prove 
any statements or allegations contained in the contestant's notice of contest, 
the same being an ex parte affidavit, and for the reason that the said alleged 
amended return is not such a retiu'n as is required by or allowed by the laws of 
the State of Oklahoma, and for the further reason that the said persons who 
subscribed to the said affidavit or alleged amended return have already been 
before this notary public and testified on the hearing of this case, and for the 
reason that the same is repetition and not the best evidence, and for the reason 
that the introduction of the said Exhibit K6 gives this contestee no opportunity 
to cross-examine the said A. L. Moore, who purports to sign the same. 

And the contestee objects to the introduction of Exhibit K7 for the reason 
that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and does not prove 
or tend to prove any of the statements or allegations contained in the contest- 
ant's notice of contest for the reason that the same is an ex parte affidavit and 
does not give this contestant any privilege or opportunity to cross-examine the 
said Louis Yorel. who purports to sign the said alleged amended return, and 
for the reason that the same is a repetition, and said Louis Vorel having hereto- 
fore testified in this matter, and for the reason that the same is not such a 
return as is contemplated by or required by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 

And the contestee objects to the introduction in evidence of Exhibit K8 for 
the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and does 
not prove or tend to prove any of the stntements or allegations contained in the 
contestant's notice of contest and for the reason that the same is an ex parte affi- 
davit and does not give this contestee any privilege or opportunity to cross- 
examine the said C. E. Burnsworth, who purports to sign the same regarding 
the allegations therein contained; and for the further reason that the said 
alleged amended return is not such a return as is contemplated or required by 
the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 

And this contestee further objects to the introduction of Exhibit K8 for 
the reason that the same is a repetition, said O. E, Burnsworth having already 
testified in this hearing. 

The contestee objects to the introduction of Exhibit K9 for the reason that 
the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and as not proving or 
tending to prove any statements or allegations contained in the contestant's 
notice of contest and for the reason that the same is an ex parte affidavit, and 
for the reason that the introduction of the same in this manner gives this con- 



84 CAKNEY VS. MORGAN. 

testee no opportunity to cross-examine tlie said person signing the same, to 
wit. F. H. Morris, respecting tlie allegations tlierein contained, and for the fur- 
ther reason that the same is a repetition, the said F. H. Morris having already 
testified in this hearing. 

And the contestee objects to the introduction in evidence of Exhibit KIO for 
the reason that the same is incomijetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and for 
the reason that the same does not prove or tend to prove any statements or 
allegations contained in the contestant's notice of contest, and for the reason 
that the same is an ex parte affidavit and does not give the contestee herein an 
opportuity or privilege of cross-examining the said persons so signing the 
same as to the statements and allegations therein contained, and for the reason 
that the same, while purporting to be an amended return, is not such a return 
or amended return as is contemplated by or required by or allowed by the laws 
of the State of Oklahoma. 

And the contestee objects to the introduction in evidence of Exhibit Kll for 
the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and is not 
proving or tending to prove any of the statements or allegations contained in 
the contestant's notice of contest for the reason that the same is an ex parte 
affidavit and not giving this contestee the privilege or opportunity of cross- 
examining the said G. W. Swails, who purports to sign the same, regarding 
the statements or allegations therein contained, and for the reason that the 
game is not a return or an amended return or any sort of return required by 
or contemplated by or allowed by the laws of the State of Oklahoma, 

And the contestee objects to the introduction in evidence of Exhibit K ]2 for 
the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and for 
the reason that the same does not prove or tend to prove any of the statements 
or allegations contained in the contestant's notice of contest and for the reason 
that the same is an ex parte affidavit and does not give this contestee the privi- 
lege or opportunity of cross-examining the said F. H. Morris, who purports 
to sign the same regarding the statements and allegations therein contained, 
and for the reason that the same is not a return or such a return or statement 
as is required by. allowed by, or contemplated by the laws of the State of 
Oklahoma. 

And this contestee objects to the introduction in evidence of Exhibit K 13 for 
the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and as not 
proving or tending to prove any statements or allegations contained in the con- 
testant's notice of contest, and for the reason that the same is an ex parte affi- 
davit which does not give or allow this contestee the privilege or opportunity of 
cross-examining the witness as to the statements or allegations therein con- 
tained, and for the further reason that the same is not such a return or 
amended return or statement as is required by or contemplated by or pre- 
scribed by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 

And the contestee objects to the introduction in evidence of Exhibit K 14 for 
the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and as not 
proven or tending to prove any of the statements or allegations contained in 
the contestant's notice of contest, and for the reason that the same is an ex 
parte affidavit which does not allow this contestee or give this contestee the 
privilege or opportunity of cross-examining the party purporting to sign the 
same, to wit, Louis Vorel, as to the statements or allegations contained in said 
affidavit, and for the further reason that the said affidavit is not such a return 
or amended return or statement as is contemplated by or required by or 
allowed by the laws of the State of Oklahoma. 

And this contestee further objects to the introduction in evidence of Exhibits 
K 1 to 14, inclusive, for the reason that the same have not been properly identi- 
fied, and for the further reason that the signatures thereto have not been 
properlv identified or sworn to or shown by any evidence, and for the further 
reason "that it has not been shown that said exhibits were delivered by those 
signing the same to the witness or that the same are any part of the records 
of the countv election board of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, or that 
thev should 'constitute any part of the election returns of Oklahoma County, 
State of Oklahoma. 

And this contestee objects to the introduction in evidence of Exhibits K 1 to 
]4, inclusive, for the reason that the same are all ex parte affidavits and from 
their nature are such that this contestee is not allowed the right, privilege, or 
opportunity of cross-examining the persons purporting to sign the same as to 
the truth or falsity or the circumstances surrounding the statements and alle- 
gations contained in said exhibits. 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAN". * 85 

And this contestee furtlier objects to the inti'oduction in evidence of Exhibits 
K 1 to 14, inclusive, for the reason that the same or a greater part thereof are 
legal conclusions of the persons signing the same and are made up of opinions 
of the parties purporting to sign the same. 

And this contestee at this time moves to strike from the recoMs said Exhibit 
K 1 to 14, inclusive, for each, every, and all of the reasons heretofore stated. 

Mr. GiDDiNGS. That is all. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Ringold. I vv^ill ask you if Exhibit K 1 was handed to you by Anderson 
Harrelson? — A. To the best of my knowledge it was handed to me by C. E. 
Burnswoi'th. 

Q. Who handed you Exhibit K 4? — A. I. N. Spears; I would not be sure 
about that initial. Ain't he on here somewheres in affidavit? 

Q. No.— A. Well, it is J. N. or I. N. Spears ; I forget. 

Q. Now, who gave you Exhibit K 5? — A. E. L. Sheldon. 

Q. Who is he?— A. Of Edmond. 

Q. Who is he? — A. He was a candidate for member of the legislature on the 
Democratic ticket from Oklahoma County. 

Q. When did he hand you that?— A. About the 16th day or ISth day of 
November, 1912. 

Q. It was not given you, then, by Mr. Davis, who signed the same? — A. Not 
by him personally. 

, Q. You would not be sure that was his signature on there at all, would 
you? — A. I didn't see him sign it. 

Q. You would not be certain that that is his signature there, would you? — A. 
I am reasonably certain ; it looks A^ery much like it. 

Q. You would not swear to it positively? — ^A. I had his signatures on other 
papers. 

Q. You would not swear to it positively, though would you? — A. All I can 
say I could not swear that he signed it from the facts that I didn't see him 
sign it. 

Q. These other affidavits here were also — Exhibits K 5 to K 14, inclusive, were 
all given you by this man Sheldon, were they not? — A. I don't remember if all of 
them were or not. There were some several of those handed in by inspectors 
from the various precincts. Some handed me by Mr. Sheldon and some were 
handed me — two. I believe, were handed me by J. L. Robinson, of Edmond. 

Q. Where have these exhibits been since they were handed to you? — A. They 
have been in my possession and my office most of the time. 

Q. When did they leave your possession? — A. About 10 days ago; between the 
1st and 5th of this month. 

Q. Who did you give them to? — A. I don't remember who called at my oflfice 
for the papers with a note from Judge Sam Hooker wanting to borrow these 
papers in preparing his answer to a contest suit now pending in the superior 
court of this county between Bob Parman and W. W. Storms, who were candi- 
dates on the Democratic and Republican ticket for ccunty clerk of this county. 

Q. When did these come into your possession? — A. Along the latter — some 
of them 

Q. I mean again ; after you parted with possession, when did they come into 
your possession again? — A. This morning. 

Q. Who gave them to you? — ^A. The clerk in Judge Tom Chamber's office. 

Q. The young boy there? — A. Yes; I don't know his name; a young man; I 
don't know his name ; I didn't ask him. 

Q. You haven't seen them from the time you gave them to some one coming 
from Sam Hooker's office until this morning you received them from this clerk 
in Tom Chamber's office? — A. I had not. 

Q. You don't know of your own personal knowledge concerning the state- 
ments and allegations contained in these exhibits, do you ; of your own personal 
knowledge? — A. I do not. 

Q. Then you could not swear of your own — according to your own personal 
knowledge concerning the truth or falsity of the statements contained in these 
affidavits here? — A. I could not. 

Q. You don't know Anderson Harrelson, do you? — A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know Sam Fahan? — A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know Fred Trent? — A. I do not. 

Q. Do you know A. Thomas? — A. I do not. 



86 CAENEY VS. MOKGAX. 

Q. Do you know P. M. Vorel? — A. No, sir; not personally; I know him 

Q. Do you know John Anderson? — A. I do not. 

Q. You would not know his signature if you saw it? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know John Roaten? — A. I do. 

Q. What is the politics, if you know, of C. E. Bruusworth, inspector in Deep 
Fork Township? — A. Supposed to be a Democrat. 

Q. W. I. Davis — what political party does he belong to? — A. Supposed to be 
a Democrat. 

Q. A. L. Moore — what political party does he belong to? — A. Who? 

Q. A. L. Moore. — ^A. I don't know. 

Q. Do you know him? — A. Not personally. 

Q. Do you know the political faith of Louis Vorel?— A. He is supposed to be 
a Democrat. 

Q. F. H. Morris— do you know to what political party he belongs?— A. I 

do not. 

Q. He is the clerk in Deep Fork Township?— A. I don't know whether he is 
clerk or .iudge. 

Q. Do you know G. W. Swails? — A. I do. 

Q. To what political party does he belong?— A. He is supposed to be a 
Democrat. 

Mr. Morgan. That is all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Dortch : ' 

Q. Mr. Rinogld. I will ask you to examine Exhibits K 1 to K 14 and see whether 
or not they are in the condition at present as they were when they were first 
given to you? 

Mr. Morgan. Contestee ob.iects to that for the reason that the same is in- 
competent, irrelevant, immaterial, and leading and suggestive, and calling for 
a conclusion of the witness and an opinion of the witness, and for the fiu'ther 
reason that the same is not the proper manner in which the identity of exhibits 
may be shown. 

A. They are. 

Mr. DoRTCH. That is all. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. How can you be sure they are exactly in the same condition as they were 
when they first came into your hands?— A. For the reason that I looked over 
these affidavits several times, in fact a number of times while they were in my 
possession and I am familiar with the contents of each affidavit. 

Q. You say you looked over them a number of times, how many — in Exhibit 
K 13 I will ask you how many negroes the affiant there claims voted in said 
voting place? 

Mr. DoRTCH. We object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and 
not proper cross-examination. 

Q. So that if the affidavit should show there were only three negroes voted 
there you would not be sure but that when it first came in to you it said 30, 
could you? 

Mr. DoRTCH. We object to that as argumentative and not cross-exammation. 

A. I would certify that the affidavit was in the same condition as it was at 
the time when I received it. 

Mr. Morgan. Read the witness the question. 

(Question read.) 

A. Yes, sir ; I am sure that it didn't say 30. 

Q. And if Exhibit 9 shows that the affiant therein claims that there were 40 
negroes voted in the township set forth therein, you could not be sure but 
what at the time it came to you it only showed 4 negroes voted therein, could 

you? . ^. 

Mr. Dortch. Objected to as argumentative and not proper cross-examination. 

A. Yes. sir; I am sure that none of the affidavits contained as many as 
30 or 40 names in the affidavit at the time they were filed with me. 

Q. Where did you keep these affidavits while you had them in your posses- 
sion? — A. They were locked in my desk. 

Q. You sometimes left your desk open when you came out of the office? — A. I 
sometimes left my desk open, but always locked the front door of the office 
when I left it. 

Q. Now, could you be sure, Mr. Ringold, that there has been no time since 
these came into your possession during the time you had them in your office 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. * 87 

that your desk has not been opened and unlocked and your door also open? — A, 
There is nobody has a key to my front door except myself. 

Q. Do you swear positively that all times during the time that these were 
in your possession and in your desk, as you say, that the desk has either been 
locked or your door locked? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. To your office. — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Ringold, about six weeks ago didn't I not come 
to your office and find your door leading out into a hallway from your oflice 
open and your desk also open, and did you not upon your return find a note from 
me on your desk saying that I was leaving certain documents there with you? 

Mr. DoRTCH. Objected to as not proper cross-examination. 

Q. And did I not leave some documents there at that time, to wit, the list 
of the inspectors and officers in Oklahoma County at the last election? — A. I 
found such a paper on my desk, but supposed it was put there by the gentleman 
who worked in my office with myself. 

Q. He has a key to the desk, has he? — -A. No ; not to my desk. 

Q. He has a key to your door? — ^A. Yes; he has a key to the door of the 
office. 

Q. Who is the party?— A. R. A. Wooldridge. 

Mr. Morgan. Alright. 

Mr. DoRTCH. Is Mr. Wooldridge a responsible and reputable party, Mr. 
Ringold ? 

Mr. Morgan. Wait a minute: we object to that as incompetent, irrelevant, 
immaterial, leading, and suggestive. 

A. I trust him. 

Mr. Morgan. Leading and suggestive and calling for a conclusion and opinion 
of the witness. 

Mr. DoRTCH. That is all. 

Exhibit A. 

TALK IT OVER WITH YOUR WIFE, MR. ELECTION OFFICIAL, AND REMEMBER THAT YOU 
WILL GO TO THE PENITENTIARY. 

If you violate the Federal election laws, and not Gov. Cruce nor his brother. 
Attorney A. C. Cruce. You will remember that the latter defended Beall and 
Quinn, who last year were convicted in the United States court at Enid and 
sentenced to the penitentiary for violating the Federal election law. and the 
State paid the attorneys in these cases about $14,000 for defending these two 
men. This averages about $7,000 per case. It is not likely that the people 
of this State, already overburdened with taxes, will be willing to continue to 
pay out $7,000 every time an election official violates the Federal statutes. 
The people are not sufficiently able to enrich the governor's brother, Attorney 
A. C. Cruce. Besides, what's the use? Where conviction is sure, there is 
nothing gained by paying out big sums of money for attorney fees. That is to 
say, there is nothing gained by anyone but the attorney. 



Exhibit B. 

Department of Justice, 
Office of the United States Attorney, 

Western District of Oklahoma, 

Chithrie, Octoher 31, 1912, 
Mr. Fred A. Wagoner. 

Deputy County Attorney, Chandler, Okla. 
Dear Sir: I have your letter asking whether at the coming general electiom 
the precinct election officers can enforce the law commonly termed the grand- 
father law and escape punishment therefor in the Federal courts on a showing 
of good faith in enforcing said law. I presume your question has arisen on 
accouiit of the apparent conflict between the decision of the Supreme Court of 
the State of Oklahoma and the United States District Courts for the Eastern 
and Western Districts of Oklahoma on the constitutionality of the law, the 
State supreme court haAing held the law constitutional, while the two United 
States courts in the State have held it unconstitutional and void. 

It must be borne in mind that this all involves purely State matters as well 
as Federal matters, and in considering the same these two phases of the law 



88 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

must be kept in mind. As to the pnrelj- State questions involved in tlie law, 
I do not express any opinion, the same not being within the jurisdiction of this 
office, and this opinion is directed solely to the Federal question involved; 
tiiat is, the application of the grandfather law to negroes who, on account of 
race, color, and previous condition of servitude, are not permitted to vote with- 
out submitting to certain tests of reading and writing. Nor shall I argue the 
question of the constitutionality of the law, for the reason that after very 
extensive argument by some of the best legal talent of the State it has already 
l>een in positive terms declared unconstitutional by the two United States dis- 
trict courts in this State, which decisions are now the law of this State as fai- 
as the Federal questions therein involved are concerned, having never been 
reversed or modified. 

Knowing this, that the Federal courts, having jurisdiction over the entire 
State, have declared the law to be unconstitutional and of no force and effect, 
the question arises whether the precinct election officers can enforce it against 
negroes on account of their race and color, and then, when prosecuted In a 
Federal court for doing so, defend the prosecution on a plea of good faith in 
enforcing the law. The question of good faith must be determined with ref- 
erence to the decision of the courts on the subject and having jurisdiction 
thereof, so there can be no good faith in acting in direct conflict with the 
known decisions of the courts, although in the absence of any such decisions 
such defense might be made. In the case against Beall and Quinn, who were 
convicted in the Federal court at Enid, in 1911, for violating section 19 of the 
Federal Criminal Code in enforcing the grandfather law at the general elec- 
tion in November, 1910, the defense of good faith was attempted, although 
without success, as the verdict of the jury disclosed. However, in that case at 
the time the acts were committed which caused a prosecution ; that is, in 
November, 1910, no Federal court had passed upon the law. 

Furthermore, all precinct election officers are quasijudicial capacity, and being 
officers of inferior and restricted jurisdiction, are all bound by the decisions of 
the Federal courts declaring the law unconstitutional when applying the same 
to negroes desiring to vote for Members of Congress and electors for President, 
and the defense of good faith will not protect them from prosecution for en- 
forcing the law in direct conflict with the Federal decisions. 
Respectfully, 

Homer N. Boakdman, 
United States Attorney. 



C— J. M. H., February 6, 1913. 



<Text illegible.) 



D.— J. M. H.. February 6, 1913. 



(Word illegible.) The terms of all officers of the State government elected at 
the time of the adoption of this constitution shall begin up the admission of any 
of the States into the Union. 

Alick Morgan. 



Exhibit E. 



(Exhibit E (original folios 176-379) is a copy of the entire registration list 
0f the city of Oklahoma City, Okla., preceding the general election in November, 
1912, and is omitted in printing.) 



Exhibit F. 
Official hallot. 



No. 1. Name. Robt. L. Scarborough; address, southeast Sixth and Mayland; 
street No., — . If voter is challenged, the clerk shall write "challenged" in 
this space If voter subscribed to an affidavit, the clerk shaU write 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAN". » 89 

" sworn " in this space If for any reason the ballot is spoiled, or 

not voted, the clerk shall write " spoiled. " in this space 

(Here follows Nos. 2-208 (original folios 381^50). which being similar to 
the above are omitted in printing.) 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned oflBclal counters for the election held at precinct No. 6 
of ward No. 2. Oklahoma City. Oklahoma County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of 
November, A. D. 1912. hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at 
said precinct in said election for the various candidates and for and against 
State questions Nos. 40 and 45 voted on is herein set forth in written words. 

For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat, seventy-four (74). 

P. J. Loewen, Republican, one hundred three (103). 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist, seven (7). 
For presidential electors. State at large: 

Robert A. Baird. Democrat, sixty-nine (69). 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat, sixty-nine (69). 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat, sixty-nine (69). 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat, sixty-nine (69). 

W. W. Hastings. Democrat, sixty-nine (69). 

Sam. Massingale, Democrat, sixty-nine (69). 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat, sixty-nine (69). 

David Ratner, Democrat, sixty-nine (69). 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, seventy (70). 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat, sixty-nine (69). 

George M. Flick, Republican, one hundred eleven (111). 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican, one hundred eleven (111). 

M. P. Howser, Republican, one hundred eleven (111). 

H. L. Hix, Republican, one hundred eleven (111). 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican, one hundred twelve (112). 

W. L. ivic Williams, Republican, one hundred thirteen (il3). 

Ret Millard, Republican, one hundred eleven (131). 

George E. Nickel. Republican, one hundred eleven (111). 

Joseph G. Ralls. Republican, one hundred eleven (111). 

W. A. Williams. Republican, one hundred eleven (111). 

E. B. Barnes. Socialist, seven (7). 

C. B. Boylan. Socialist, seven (7). 

A. R. Bradshaw. Socialist, seven (7). 

W. H. Davis. Socialist, seven (7). 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist, seven (7). 

Allen Fields. Socialist, seven (7). 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist, seven (7). 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, seven (7). 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist, seven (7). 

Thos. W. Woodrow. Socialist, seven (7). 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

J. E. Brewer, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

Chas. Brown, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

S. H. Brown. Prohibitionist, one (1). 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

G. M. Hadduck, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

Chas. O. Jennings. Prohibitionist, one (1). 

J. H. Medaris. Prohibitionist, one (1). 

G. E. Rouch, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibitionist, one (1). 
For United States Senator : 

Robt. L. Owen, Democrat, seventy-nine (79). 

J. T. Dickerson. Republican, ninety-nine (99). 

John G. Wills, Socialist, seven (7). 
For Congressman, State at large: 

Wm. H. Murray. Democrat, seventy -five (75). ^_ 

Joe B. Thompson. Democrat, seventy-five (75). 

Claude Weaver, Democrat, eighty (80). 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican, one hundred three (103). 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican, one hundred three (103). 



90 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

For Congressman, State at large — Continued. 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican, one hundred one (101). 

Oscar Ameringer, Socialist, seven (7). 

J. T. Cumbie, Socialist, seven (7). 

J. Luther Langston, Socialist, eight (8). 
For justice supreme court, first district : 

John B. Turner, Democrat, seventy-two (72). 

Charles Alston Cook, Republican, one hundred seven (107). 
For judge criminal court appeals, southern district : 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat, seventy-three (73). 

George T. Ralls. Republican, one hundred six (106). 

E. S. Hurt, Socialist, seven (7). 
For Representative in Congress, second district : 

J. J. Carney, Democrat, seventy (70). 

Dick T. Morgan, Republican, one hundred nine (109). 

P. D. McKenzie. Socialist, six (6). 
For State senator, fourteenth district : 

Ben. F. Wilson. Democrat, seventy-one (71). 

John Threadgill. Republican, one hundred seven (107). 

Geo. E. Owen. Socialist, seven (7). 
For representative, first district : 

E. L. Shelden. Democrat, seventy (70). 

C. H. De Ford. Republican, one hundred five (105). 

S. T. Bennett. Socialist, seven (7). 
State question No. 40. initiative petition No. 25 : 

Shall it be adopted? 
Yes, twenty (20). 
No, one hundred fifty-one (151). 
State question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17 : 

Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? 
Yes, ninety-five (95). 
No, fifty (50). 

We further certify that there were two spoiled ballots, the consecutive num- 
bers of which were from nud including numbers 209, two hundred nine to and 
including number five hundred thirty-three (533). 

V R. E. Brownell, 

W. L. Oates, 
Henky a. Hoffman, 
r. e. scammell, 

Official Counters. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 5th day of November, A. D. 
1912. This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 



Exhibit G. 
Official ballot. 

No. 1. Name. O. H. Buchanan ; address, 216 North Oklahoma ; street No. 
216 North Oklahoma. If voter is challenged, the clerk shall write " chal- 
lenged " in this space If voter subscribed to an affidavit, the 

clerk shall write " sworn " in this space If for any reason the 

ballot is spoiled or not voted, the clerk shall write " spoiled " in this 
space 

(Here follows Nos. 2-26S (original folios 453-533) which being similar to 
the above are omitted in printing.) 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned ofiicial counters for the election held at precinct 9 of 
ward 2, Oklahoma Township of Oklahoma County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of 
November, A. D. 1912, hereby certifj^ that the correct number of votes cast at 
said precinct in said election for the various candidates and for and against 
State questions Nos. 40 to 45 voted on is herein set forth in written words. 

For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat, seventy. 

P. J. Loeweu. Republican, one hundred forty-six. 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist, twenty-two. 



CAENEY VS. M0KGAN.4 91 

For Presidential electors, State at large : 
Robert A. Baird, Democrat, seventy-one. 
J. W. Bolen, Democrat, seventy-one. 
H. H. Brenner, Democrat, sixty-eight. 
Joseph W. Foster, Democrat, seventy. 
W. W. Hastings, Democrat, seventy. 
Sam Massingale, Democrat, sixty-seven. 
S. H. Mayes, Democrat, sixty-nine. 
David Ratner, Democrat, sixty-eight. 
J. D. Scott, Democrat, seventy. 
J. S. Thompson, Democrat, sixty-eight. 
George M. Flick, Republican, one hundred forty-nine. 
Marshall W. Hinch, Republican, one hundred forty-six. 
M. P. Howser, Republican, one hundred forty-seven. 
H. L. Hix, Republican, one hundred forty-five. 
Lindsey L. Long, Republican, one hundred forty-four. 
W. L. McWilliams, Republican, one hundred forty-six. 
Ret Millard, Republican, one hundred forty-four. 
George E. Nickel, Republican, one hundred forty-six. 
Joseph G. Ralls, Republican, one hundred forty-four. 
W. A. Williams, Republican, one hundred forty-six. 
E. B. Barnes, Socialist, twenty-one. 
C. B. Boylan, Socialist, twenty. 
A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist, twenty. 
W. H. Davis, Socialist, twenty. 
R. E. Dooley, Socialist, twenty-one. 
Allen Fields, Socialist, twenty-three. 
Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist, twenty-three. 
I. N. Johnson, Socialist, twenty-one. 
A. W. Renshaw. Socialist, twenty-one. 
Thos. W. Woodrow, Socialist, twenty-two. 
M. Simpson Allen, Prohibitionist, two. 
J. E. Brewer, Prohibitionist, one. 

Chas. Brown, Prohibitionist, one. 

S. H. Brown. Prohibitionist, one. 

Taylor H. Ebersold, Prohibitionist, one. 

G. M. Hadduck. Prohibitionist, one. 

Chas. O. Jennings, Prohibitionist, one. 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibitionist, one. 

G. E. Rouch, Prohibitionist, one, 

H. E. Strickler, one. 
For United States Senator: 

Robt. L. Owen. Democrat, seventy-nine. 

J. T. Dickerson, Republican, one hundred forty-one. 

John G. Wills. Socialist, twenty-one. 
For Congressman. State at large : 

Wm. H. Murray. Democrat, sixty-nine. 

Joe B. Thompson, Democrat, sixty-five. 

Claude Weaver. Democrat, seventy-three. 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican, one hundred thirty-nine. 

Jas. L. Brown. Republican, one hundred forty-one. 

Emory D. Brownlee. Republican, one hundred thirty-five. 

Oscar Ameringer. Socialist, twenty-seven. 

J. T. Cumbie, Socialist, twenty-four. 

J. Luther Langston. Socialist, twenty-seven. 
For justice supreme court, first district : 

.John B. Turner. Democrat, seventy-four. 

Charles Alston Cook. Republican, one hundred thirty-nine. 
For judge criminal court appeals, southern district: 

Henry ^Nlr. Furman, Democrat, sixty-nine. 

George T. Ralls. Republican, one hundred forty-five. 

E. S. Hurt. Socialist, twenty-five. 
For Representative in Congress, second district: 

J. J. Carney, Democrat, seventy. 

Dick T. Morgan. Republican, one hundred fifty-one. 

P. D. McKenzie, Socialist, twenty-three. 



92 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

For senator, fourteenth district : 

Ben F. Wilson, Democrat, sixty-nine. 
John Threadgill, one hundred fifty-three. 
Geo. Owen, Socialist, twenty-two. 
For representative : 

E, L. Sheldon, Democrat, sixty-nine. 
C. H. De Ford, Republican, one hundred forty-six. 
S. T. Bennett, Socialist, twenty-two. 
For State Question No. 40, initiative petition No. 25 : 
Shall it be adopted?— 
Yes, forty-one. 
No, one hundred thirty-one. 
State Question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17^ : 
Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? — 
Yes, seventy. 
No, eighty. 

We further certify that there were 10 spoiled ballots, the consecutive numbers 
and there were — unused ballots, numbers of which were from and 



including numbers to and including number — . 

H. ]M. Smith, 
Tony Bruza, 
C. A. Drake. 
E. J. Rasbach, 

Official Counters. 
J. E. Lucas. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of November. A. D. 1912. 
This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk,' or inspector. 



Exhibit H. 
Official ballot. 

No. 1. Name. J. C. Whittaker ; address, 12 South Klein Street, Oklahoma City. 
If voter is challenged, the clerk shall write " Challenged " in this space 

If voter subscribed to an affidavit, the clerk shall write " Sworn " 

in this space If for any reason the ballot is spoiled or not voted. 

the clerk shall write " Spoiled. " in this space 

(Here follows Nos. 2-382 (original folios 537-643), which being similar to the 
above are omitted in printing.) 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned official counters for the election held at precinct No. 9 
of ward 3, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of 
November, A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at 
said precinct in said election for the various candidates and for and against 
State questions Nos. 40 and 45 voted on. is herein set forth in written words : 

For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat 186 

P. J, Loewen, Republican 132 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist 21 

For presidential electors. State at large : 

Robert A. Baird, Democrat 179 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat 178 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat 177 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat ISO 

W. W. Hastings. Democrat ISO 

Sam Massingale, Democrat ISO 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat 1'79 

David Ratner, Democrat I'T^S 

J. D. Scott. Democrat—- 181 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat 1"^ 

George M. Flick, Republican i 144 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican 130 

M. P. Howser, Republican 141 

H. L. Hix. Republican 140 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 93 

For presidential electors. State at large— Continued. 

Lindsey L. Long. Republican . 140 

W. L. McWilliams. Republican 141 

Ret Millard. Republican 141 

George E. Nickel. Republican 139 

Joseph G. Ralls. Republican 140 

W. A. Williams, Republican 141 

E. B. Barnes. Socialist 24 

C. B. Boylan. Socialist 25 

A. R. Bradsbaw. Socialist 26 

W. H. Davis. Socialist 2-5 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist 25 

Allen Fields, Socialist 24 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist 25 

I. N. Johnson, vSocialist 25 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist 25 

Thomas W. Woodrow, Socialist '. — 25 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibition 4 

J. E. Brewer. Prohibition 4 

Chas. Brown. Prohibition 4 

S. H. Brown, Prohibition 4 

Taylor H. Ebersole. Prohibition 4 

G. M. Hadduck. Prohibition 4 

Chas. O. Jennings, Prohibition '4 

J. H. Medaris. Prohibition 4 

G. E. Rouch. Prohibition 4 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibition 4 

For United States Senator: 

Robert L. Owen. Democrat 206 

J. T. Dickerson. Republican 120 

John G. Wills. Socialist 22 

For Congressman, State at large : 

William H. Murray, Democrat 181 

Joe B. Thompson. Democi'at 183 

Claude Weaver, Democrat 189 

Alvin D. Allen. Republican 134 

James L. Brown. Republican 134 

Emory D. Brownlee. Republican 125 

Oscar Ameringer, Socialist 27 

J. T. Cumbie. Socialist 24 

J. Luther Langston. Socialist 23 

For justice supreme court, first district: 

John B. Turner. Democrat 182 

Charles Alston Cook, Republican 136 

For judge criminal court appeals, southern district: 

Henry M. Furman. Democrat 184 

George T. Ralls. Republican 135 

E. S. Hurt. Socialist 26 

For Representative in Congress: 

J. J. Carney 191 

Dick T. Morgan 142 

P. D. McKienzie 23 

For State senator, district: 

Ben Wilson 175 

John Threadgill 150 

Gill Owne 23 

For representative : 

D. B. Welty 1'3'6 

A. C. Baxter 140 

M. F. Parker 29 

State question No. 40. initiative petition No. 25 : 
Shall it be adopted?— 

Yes 33 

No 270 

State question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17 : 
Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? — 

Yes 147 

No - 106 



94 CABNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

We further certify that there were 5 spoiled ballots, the consecutive numbers 
of which were Nos. 181, and there were 419 unused ballots, the consecutive 
numbers of which were from and including Nos. 382 and to and including 
No. 800. 

Frank Andres, 
Wm. L. Schnub, 
W. A. Tucker, 
Frank Stout, 

Official Counters. 
S. E. Davis. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 
This oath may be administered by the clerk. 



Exhibit I. 
Official 'ballot. i 

No. 1. Name, R. N. Johnson; address. No. 409 Culbertson Street. If voter is 

challenged the clerk shall write " Challenged " in this space If 

voter subscribed to an affidavit, the clerk shall write " Sworn " in this space 

If for any reason the ballot is spoiled or not voted, the clerk 

shall write " Spoiled " in this space 

(Here follows Nos. 2-384 (original folios 647-772), which being similar to the 
above are omitted in pi-inting.) 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned official counters for the election held at precinct No. 7, 
of ward 3, Township of. Oklahoma County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of Novem- 
ber, A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at said 
precinct in said election for the various candidates and for and against State 
questions Nos. 40 and 45 voted on is herein set forth in written words. 

For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat, two hundred thirty-one (231). 
P. J. Loewen, Republican, uinety-nine (99). 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist, ten (10). 
For presidential electors, State at large : 

Robert A. Baird, Democrat, two hundred five (205). 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat, two hundred nine (209). 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat, two hundred seven (207). 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat, two hundred seven (207). 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat, two hundred seven (207). 

Sam Massingale, Democrat, two hundred six (206). 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat, two hundred five (205). 

David Ratner, Democrat, two hundred six (206). 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, two hundred six (206). 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat, two hundred nine (209). 

George M. Flick, Republican, one hundred thirty-two (132). 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican, one hundred thirty (130). 

M. P. Howser, Republican, one hundred thirty (130). 

H. L. Hix, Republican, one hundred thirty (130). 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican, one hundred thirty -two (132). 

W. L. McWilliams, Republican, one hundred thirty-one (131). 

Ret Millard, Republican, one hundred thirty-one (131). 

George E. Nickel, Republican, one hundred thirty-one (131). 

Joseph E. Ralls, Republican, one himdred thirty-one (131). 

W. A. Williams, Republican, one hundred thirty-one (131). 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist, ten (10). 

C. B. Boylan, Socialist, nine (9). 

A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist, nine (9). 

W. H. Davis, Socialist, nine (9). 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist, ten (10). 

Allen Fields, Socialist, nine (9). 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist, nine (9). 



CABNEY VS. MORGAN. 95 

For presidential electors, State at large — Continued. 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, ten (10). 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist, nine (9). 

Tlios. W. Woodrow, Socialist, nine (9). 

M. Simpson Allen Prohibitionist. 

J. E. Brewer, Prohibitionist. 

Chas. Brown, Prohibitionist, one (1). ' • 

S. H. Brown, Prohibitionist. 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibitionist. 

G. M. Hadduck, Prohibitionist. 

Chas. O. Jennings, Prohibitionist. 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

G. E. Rouch, Prohibitionist. 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibitionist. 
For United States Senator: 

Robt. L. Owen, Democrat, two hundred twenty-seven (227). 

J. T. Dickerson, Republican, one hundred (100). 

John G. Wills, Socialist, ten (10). 
For Congressman, State at large : 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat, two hundred sixteen (216). 

Joe B. Thompson, Democrat, two hundred nineteen (219). 

Claude Weaver, Democrat, two hundred thirty-five (235). 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican, one hundred fifteen (115). 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican, one hundred eleven (111). 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican, one hundred nine (109). 

Oscar Ameringer, Socialist, twelve (12). 

J. T. Cumbie, Socialist, eleven (11). 

J. Luther Langston, socialist, twelve (12). 
For justice supreme court, first district : 

John B. Turner. Democrat, two hundred twenty (220). 

Charles Alston Cook, Republican, one hundred fifteen (115). 
For judge criminal court appeals .southern district: 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat, two hundred twenty-one (221). 

George T. Ralls, Republican, one hundred thirteen (113). 

E. S. Hurt, Socialist, seven (7). 
For Representative in Congress, second district : 

J. J. Carney, two hundred twenty (220). 

Dick T. Morgan, one hundred twenty-two (122). 

P. D. McKenzie, nine (9). 
For State senator, fourteenth district : 

Ben. F. Wilson, two hundred five (205). 

John Threadgill, one hundred forty-two (142). 

Geo. E. Owen, nine (9). 
For Representative, second district : 

Hugh H. Randall, two hundred nine (209). 

J. H. Norton, one hundred twenty-nine (129). 

Bert Dixon, twelve (12). 
State question No. 40* initiative petition No. 25 : 

Shall it be adopted? 
Yes, fourteen (14). 
No, three hundred sixteen (316). 
State question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17 : 

Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? 
Yes, one hundred fifty -nine (159). 
No, one hundred four (104). 

We further certify that there were ten (10) spoiled ballots, the consecutive 

numbers of which were numbers , and there were five hundred fifty (550) 

unused ballots, the consecutive numbers of which were from and Including 
numbers three hundred eighty-three (383) to and including number nine hun- 
dred thirty-three (933). 

Jno. E. Baldwin, 
Cliffoed I. Mtees, 
Edwabd a. Wagenee, 
a. r. gomley, 

Official Counters. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 5th day of November A. D. 1912. 
This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 



96 CAENEY VS. MOEGAIf. 

Exhibit J. 
Official Mllot. 

No. 1. Name, C. E. M. Clavin; address, 111 West Frisco Street, Oklahoma 
City. If voter is challenged the clerk shall write " challenged " in this space 

. If voter subscribed to an affidavit the clerk shall write " sworn " 

in this space . If for any reason the ballot is spoiled or not voted, 

the clerk shall write " Spoiled " in this space . 

(Here follows Nos. 1-338 (original folios 775-893), which being similar to the 
above are omitted in printing.) 

Gertiflcate of vote. 

We, the undersigned official counters for the election held at precinct No. — 

of township of — — — county, on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 

A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at said precinct 
in said election for the various candidates and for and against State questions 
Nos. 50 and 45 voted on is herein set forth in written words. 

For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat, one hundred forty-seven. 

P. J. Loewen, Republican, one hundred twenty-nine. 

C. E. Hedgpeth. Socialist, twenty. 
For presidential electors. State at large: 

Robert A. Baird. Democrat, one hundred forty-seven. 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat, one hundred forty-three. 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat, one hundred forty-two. 

Joseph W. Foster. Democrat, one hundred forty-two. 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat, one hundred forty-two. 

Sam Massingale, Democrat, one hundred forty-one. 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat, one hundred forty-one. 

David Ratner, Democrat, one hundred forty-two. 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, one hundred forty-one. 

J. C. Thompson. Democrat, one hundred forty-one. 

George M. Flick, Republican, one thirty-four. 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican, one thirty-three. 

M. P. Howser, Republican, one hundred thirty-six. 

H. L. Hix, Republican, one hundred thirty-four. 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican, one hundred thirty-four. 

W. L. McWiUiams, Republican, one hundred thirty-seven. 

Ret Millard, Republican, one hundred thirty-four. 

George E. Nickel, Republican, one hundred thirty-five. 

Joseph G. Ralls, Republican, one hundred thirty-four. 

W. A. Williams, Republican, one hundred thirty-four. 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist, two. 

C. B. Boylan, Socialist, two. 

A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist, twenty. 

W. H. Davis. Socialist, twenty-one. 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist, twenty. * 

Allen Fields, Socialist, twenty. 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist, twenty-one. 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, twenty. 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist, twenty. 

Thos. W. Woodrow. Socialist, twenty. 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibitionist, three. 

J. E. Brewer, Prohibitionist, three. 

Chas. Brown, Prohibitionist, three. 

S. H. Brown, Prohibitionist, three. 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibitionist, three. 

G. M. Hadduck, Prohibitionist, three. 

Chas. O. Jennings, Prohibitionist, three. 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibitionist, three. 

G. E. Rouch, Prohibitionist, three. 

H. E. Strickler. Prohibitionist, three. 
For United States Senator : 

Robt. L. Owen, Democrat, one hundred fifty-four. 

J. T. Dickerson, Republican, one hundred thirty-one. 

John G. Wills, Socialist, twenty-two. 



CAENEY VS. MOKGAN. ^ 97 

For Congressman, State at large : 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat, one hundred forty-three. 

Joe B. Thompson. Democrat, one hundred forty. ^i^, 

Claude Weaver, Democrat, one hundred fifty-one. 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican, one hundred twenty-four. 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican, one hundred twenty-four. 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican, one hundred twenty-five. " 

Oscar Ameringer. Socialist, twenty-one. ^ 

J. T Cumbie, Socialist, seventeen. 

J. Luther Langston, Socialist, seventeen. 
For justice supreme court, first district : 

John B. Turner, Democrat, one hundred forty-four. 

Charles Alston Cook, Republican, one hundred twenty-seven. 
For judge criminal court appeals, southern district : ' 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat, one hundred forty-seven. 

George T. Ralls, Republican, one hundred twenty-eight. 

E. S. Hurt, Socialist, eighteen. 
For Representative in Congress, second district: 

J. J. Carney, one hundred four four. 

Dick T. Morgan, one hundi'ed. 

P. D. McKenzie, fifteen. 
For State senator, fourteenth district: 

Ben F. Wilson, one hundred forty-two. 

John Threadgill, one hundred thirty-seven. 

Geo. E. Owens, eighteen. 
For Representative, second district : 

Hugh A. Randall, one hundred forty-two. 

John H. Horton. one hundred thirty-two. 

Bert Dixon, eighteen. 
State question No. 40, initiative petition No. 25 : 

Shall it be adopted? 
Yes, twenty-five. 
No, two hundred eighteen. 
State question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17 : 

Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? 
Yes, ninety. 

No. one hundred thirteen. 
We further certify that there were no spoiled ballots, the consecutive num- 
bers of which were numbers ; and there were four hundred sixty- 
one unused ballots, the consecutive numbers of which were from and including 
numbers three hundred thirty-nine to and including number eight hundred. 

J. T. Yeard, 

E. D. OSBOEN, 

N. Z. HURD, 

A. D. ESTABROOK, 

Official Counters. 
S. W. Childs, Inpt. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this, the 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 
This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 



Exhibit K 1. 

Affidavit of challenged voter. 

State of Oklahoma, 

County of Arcadia: 
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) — 

(1) I am a male citizen of the United States. 

(2) I am a native of the United States. 

(3) I have for more than 30 days last past resided in the precinct in which 
I am now offering to vote, and that I am now a bona fide resident of this 
precinct. 

4252—13 7 



98 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

(4) I have resided for more than six mouths last past in the county in which 
I am now offering to vote. 

(5) I have resided for more than one year last past in the State of Oklahoma. 

(6) I am over the age of 21 years. 

(7) I am not deprived of any right of citizenship by virtue of any conviction 
of a felony. 

(S) I am not kept in any poorhouse or other asylum at public expense. 
(9) I am not now being kept in a public prison. 
ilQ) I am not a lunatic. 

<11) I am not an officer or soldier in the Regular Army or a marine in the 
Navy of the United States. 

(32) I know of no reason why I am not entitled to a vote. 

(13) I am generally known by the name under which I now desire to vote, 
which is Anderson Harilson. 

(14) I have not voted and will not vote in any other precinct in this election. 
<(15) My occupation is farmer. 

<16) My residence is Arcadia, Deep Fork Township. 
((17) During the last six months I have resided at Arcadia. 

(15) I have removed from Kansas to Oklahoma of the following date: 23 
years ago. 

(19) That Walter Owen and Albert Sandy have personal knowledge of my 
residence in the precinct 30 days and in the county 6 months and in the State 
1 year. 

Anderson (his x mark) Haeilson. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of November, 1912. 

W. B. WaeB', 
Justice of the Peace. 

State of Oklahoma, 

County of ; 

I swear that I know, or am informed, and believe that Anderson Plarilson, 
now offering to vote, is not a legal voter in this precinct. 

D. E. BURNWORTH. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of November, 1912. 

State of Oklahoma, 

County of Oklahoma: 

1 do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am a qualified elector in this precinct; 
that I have been a freeholder and householder in this precinct for one year 
next preceding this election ; that Anderson Haraldson, who now desires to vote, 
has resided in this State for one year immediately preceding this election ; 
that he has resided in this county 6 months and in this precinct 30 days at 
Arcadia ; that he is now a bona fide resident of this precinct and a legal voter 
therein. These facts I know of my own personal knowledge. 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of November, 1912. 

B. W. Owen. 

Should the person challenged be not a native of the United States, unless he 
be of Indian descent he may strike out the avowal No. 2, to be by him sub- 
scribed. If he be of Indian descent, he must be a native of the United States 
to be entitled to vote. 

Should the person challenged be at the time confined in a poorhouse or other 
asylum at public expense he may still be entitled to subscribe to said affidavit 
and vote, provided he will strike out of avowal No. 8, as arranged herein, the 
word " not " and add at the close of such avowal with pen and ink the words 
"" as a soldier of the War 1861-65 between the States." 

Should the person challenged be an officer in the Regular Army or a marine 
in the Navy of the United States enlisted from this State, he may strike out 
the word " nor " in avowal No. 11 and add at the close of the avowal the words 
" but I enlisted from this State," and strike out avowal No.- 18 in case he has 
not removed as therein provided. 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 99 

Exhibit K 2. 

Affidavit of challenged voter. 
State of Oklahoma, 

County of Oklahoma: 
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 

(1) I am a male citizen of the United States. 

(2) I am a native of the United States. 

(3) I have for more than 30 days, last past, resided in the precinct in 
which I am now offering to vote, and that I am now a bona fide resident of 
this precinct. 

(4) I have resided for more than six months, last past, in the county in 
which I am now offering to vote. 

(5) I have resided for more than one year, last past, in the State of 
Oklahoma. 

(6) I am over the age of 21 years. 

(7) I am not deprived of any right of citizenship by virtue of any con- 
viction of a felony. 

(8) I am not now kept in any poorhouse or other asylum at public expense. 

(9) I am not now being kept in a public prison. 
(lOj I am not a lunatic. 

(11) I am not an officer, or soldier, in the Regular Army, or a marine in the 
Navy of the United States. 

(12) I know of no reason why I am not entitled to a vote. 

(13 I am generally known by the name under which I now desire to vote, 
which is . 

(14) I have not voted and will not vote in any other precinct in this election. 

(15) My occupation is farmer. 

(16) My residence is Arcadia. 

(17) During the last six months I have resided at Arcadia. 

(18) I have removed from Kan.sas to Oklahoma of the following date: 22 
years ago. 

(19) That Charles Norris and Fred Trent have personal knowledge of my 
residence in the precinct 30 days, and in the county 6 months, and the State 
1 year. 

Sam (his x mark) Fame. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me. this 5th day of November, 1912. 

W. B. Wood, 
Justice of the Peace. 
State of Oklahoma, 

County of Oklahoma, Okla.: 
I swear that I know, or am informed, and believe that Fred Trent, now 
offering to vote is not a legal voter in this precince. 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of November, 1912. 

C. E. BURNWOBTH. 

State of Oklahoma, County of .* 

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am a qualified elector of this precinct; 
that I have been a freeholder and householder in this precinct for one year, 
next preceding this election ; that Fred Trent, who now desires to vote, has 
resided in this State for one year, immediately preceding this election ; that he 
has resided in this county six months, and in this precinct 30 days, at Arcadia ; 
that he is now a bona fide resident of this precinct and a legal voter therein. 
These facts I know of my own personal knowledge. 



Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of November, 1912. 

Chaelie Mokris. 

Should the person challenged be not a native of the United States, unless he 
be of Indian descent, he may strike out the avowal No. 2, to be by him sub- 
scribed. If he be of Indian descent, he must be a native of the United States 
to be entitled to vote. 

Should the person challenged be at the time confined in a poorhouse, or other 
asylum, at public expense, he may still be entitled to subscribe to said affidavit 



100 * CAKNEY VS. MORGAN. 

and vote, provided he will strike out of avowal No. 8, as arranged herein, the 
word " not," and add at the close of such avowal, with pen and ink, the words, 
" as a soldier of the war 1861-65 between the States." 

Should the person challenged be an officer in the Regular Army, or a marine 
in the Navy of the United States, enlisted from this State, he may strike out 
the word "nor " in avowal No. 11, and add at the close of the avowal the words, 
" but I enlisted from this State," and strike out avowal No. 18 in case he has 
not removed, as therein provided. 

Exhibit K 3. 

Exhibit K 3 (original folios 902-904) is a duplicate of Exhibit K 2, and is 
omitted in printing. 



Exhibit K 4. 

State of Oklahoma, County of Oklahoma, ss: 

Personally appeared before me A. Thomas, whom I am personally acquainted 
with, and made oath that he is a resident of Oklahoma County and is a legal 
voter in Choctaw Township, and that his grandfather on his side of the house 
and also on his mother's side of the house was white men and legal voters. 

A. (his X mark) Thomas. 
Witness to mark : 

B. C. HiGDON. 

Hans Martin. 

Subscribed and sworn to this the 1st day of November. 1912. 

[seal.] J. D. Edmundson, Notary Public. 

My commission expires June 21, 1913. 



Exhibit K 5. 

Amended return. 

State of Oklahoma, OMahoma County, ss: 

W. I. Davis, of lawful age, declares that at the general election held in the 
State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, 1912, he was the duly appointed 
qualified, and acting inspector of Dewey Township, said county and said State ; 
that no legal election was held in said township upon said date; that fraud 
and intimidation were used against the election officials in said township, and 
threats of criminal prosecution made to the end that many illegal voters of the 
negro race might vote and did so vote; and that it is impossible to determine 
from the vote in said township what the result of the vote therein would have 
been had it not been for such illegal vote and the methods used in said town- 
ship ; and that the said W. I. Davis asks that this amended return be made a 
part of the original return, and that said vote be not canvassed nor the result 
of said township declared. 

W. I. Davis. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of November, 1912. 
[seal.] Mary S. Hill, Notary Public. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 



Exhibit K 6. 
Amended return. 



State of Oklahoma, OMahoma County, ss: 

A. L. Moore, of lawful age, declares that at the general election held in the 
State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, 1912, he was the duly ap- 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. » 101 

rointed, qualified, and acting judge counting board of Luther Township, said 
county and State; that no legal election was held in said township upon said 
date ; that fraud and intimidation were used against the election officials in said 
township, and threats of criminal prosecution made to the end that many illegal 
voters of the negro race might vote and did so vote; and that it is impossible 
to determine from the vote in said township what the result of the vote therein 
would have been had it not been for such illegal vote and the methods used in 
said township; and that the said A. L. Moore asks that this amended return 
be made a part of the original return, and that said vote be not canvassed nor 
the result of said township declared. 

A. L. Moore. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of November, 1912. 
[seal.] p. M. Vobel, Votary Public. 

My commission expires December 10, 1912. 



Exhibit K 7. 

Amended return. 

State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

Louis Vorel, of lawful age, declares that at the general election held in the 
State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, 1912, he was the duly ap- 
pointed, qualified, and acting inspector of Luther Township, said county and 
State; that no legal election was held in said township upon said date; that 
fraud and intimidation were used against the election officials in said township, 
and threats of criminal prosecution made to the end that many illegal voters 
of the negro race might vote and did so vote ; and that it is impossible to deter- 
mine from the vote in said township what the result of the vote therein would 
have been had it not been for such illegal vote and the methods used in said 
township; and that the said Louis Vorel asks that this amended return be 
made a part of the original return, and that said vote be canvassed nor the 
result of said township declared. 

Louis VOBEL. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of November, 1912. 
[seal.] p. M. Vorel, Notary PuUic. 

My commission expires December 10, 1912. 



^ Exhibit K 8. 

Amended return. 

State of Oklahoma, OJdahoma County, ss: 

C. E. Burnworth, of lawful age, declares that at the general election held in 
the State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, 1912, he was the duly 
appointed, qualified, and acting inspector of Deep Fork Township, said county 
and State; that no legal election was held in said township upon said date; 
that fraud and intimidation were used against the election officials in said 
township and threats of criminal prosecution made to the end that many illegal 
voters of the negro race might A^ote, and did so vote ; and that it is impossible 
to determine from the vote in said township what the result of the vote therein 
would have been had it not been for such illegal vote and the methods used in 
said township; and that the said C. E. Burnworth asks that this amended 
return be made a part of the original return, and that said vote be not can- 
vassed nor the result of said township declared. 

C. E. Burnworth. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of November, 1912. 
[seal.] John R. Anderson, Notary Public. 

My commission expires June 14, 1916. 



102 CAKNEY VS. MOEGAlSr. 

Exhibit K 9. 

Amended return. 

State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

F. H. Morris, of lawful age, declares that at tlie general election held in 
the State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, 1912, he was the duly 
appointed, qualified, and acting clerk of Deep Fork Township, said county 
and State ; that no legal election was held in said township upon said date ; 
that fraud and intimidation were used against the election officials in said 
township and threats of criminal prosecution made to the end that many illegal 
voters of the negro race might vote, and did so vote; and that it Is impossible 
to determine from the vote in said township what the result of the vote therein 
would have been had it not been for such illegal vote and the methods used in 
said township; and that the said F. H. Morris asks that this amended return 
be made a part of the original return and that said vote be not canvassed nor 
the result of said township declared. 

F. H. MoEBis. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15th day of November, 1912. 
[seal.] .John E,. Andeeson, 'Notary Puhlic. 

My commission expires June 14. 1916. 



Exhibit K 10. 

Amended return. 

State of Oklahoma, OMahoma County, ss: 

G. "W. Swails, of lawful age, declares that at the general election held in 
the State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, 1912, he was the duly 
appointed, qualified, and acting counter of Deep Fork Township, said county 
and State ; that no legal election was held in said township upon said date ; 
that fraud and intimidation were used against the election officials in said 
township and threats of criminal prosecution made to the end that many illegal 
voters of the negro race might vote, and did so vote; and that it is impossible 
to determine from the vote in said township what the result of the vote therein 
would have been had it not been for such illegal vote and the methods used in 
said township; and that the said G. W. Swails asks that this amended return 
be made a part of the original return and that said vote be not canvassed nor 
the result of said township declared. 

G. W. Swails. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 16th day of November, 1912. 
[SEAL.] John R. Anderson, Notary Public. 

My commission expires June 14, 1916. 



Exhibit K 11. 

State of Oklahoma, Cotmty of OMahoma, ss: 

G. W. Swails. of lawful age, being first duly sworn, states : That he is a resi- 
dent of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, and a legal voter in Deep Fork 
Township, in said county ; that on the 5th day of November. 1912, he was one of 
the counters at the county. State, and National elections held in said State and 
in said township; that as such election officer he was on duty at the voting 
place in said township and sat in the presence of C. E. Burnworth, the elec- 
tion inspector, together with the other election officers ; that during the progress 
of the voting at said election there were negroes, or persons of African descent, 
who presented themselves at said voting place and asked for ballots to vote; 
that their votes were challenged by said inspector of elections ; said negroes 
aforesaid refused then and there to qualify as provided by the laws of the State 
of Oklahoma, and then and there stated that they could not I'ead nor write; 
that they were refused the privilege at that time of voting ; that said negroes 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. » 103 

went away and later returned with affidavits which were swovn to by Charles 
Morris, another negro: after that they were allowed to vote at said election; 
that at no time did said negroes qualify as provided for by law, but stated that 
they could not read and could not write; that A. H. Crabb, a candidate for 
office in said township, told the said election officers that if they did not allow 
said negroes to vote they would get into serious trouble; that there were as 
many as three or more of said negroes who voted at said election in said town- 
ship under the conditions and circumstances above named; that Fred Trent 
was one of such negroes so voting. 

Dated this 11th cTay of November, 1912. 

G. W. SWAILS. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 11th day of November, 1912. 
[seal.] John Roaten, 'Notary PulMc. 

My commission expires January 11th, 1916. 



Exhibit K 12. 

State of Oklahoma. County of Oklahomo. ss: 

F. H. Morris, of lawful age, bein,g first duly sworn, deposes and states that 
he is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma; that he resided in 
Deep Fork Township of said county and is a legal voter therein; that he was 
such a resident of said township on the 5th day of November, 1912; that he 
was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting clerk of elections in said township 
on said date, to wit. the 5th day of November. 1912, the day upon which was 
held the county, State, and National election; that he was present on said date 
at the regular voting place of said township, to perform his duties as such 
election officer; that he remained there, acting in such capacity throughout the 
day of said election ; that as such election officer at said place and date afore- 
said, this affiant tried to follow the laws of the State of Oklahoma with ref- 
erence to allowing or not allowing persons to vc^te at said election ; that in said 
township and on said date there were a number of negroes, or persons of 
African descent, to wit, Fred Trent and others, who presented themselves at 
said election to vote, and called for the county. State, and National ballot; 
that this affiant, or one of the other of said election officials, challenged said 
persons on the ground that they, and each of them, were no legal voters under 
the laws of the State of Oklahoma in that such persons could not qualify under 
the constitutional provision usually shown as the " grandfather clause " ; that 
said negroes insisted upon voting a*" said election in disregard of the said laws 
in violation thereof and under the objections of this nffiant; that said persons of 
African descent did vote at said election aforesaid ; that this affiant did not take 
the necessary means to prevent said negroes from voting as aforesaid, for the 
reason that this affiant had received threatening letters from Federal officers 
warning this nffiant against enforcing or trying to enforce said laws, partic- 
ularl.v the said " grandfather clause " ; that he had also heard tha^- other elec- 
tion officers in this State had been prosecuted by the Federal officers for en- 
forcing said laws, and this affiant was afraid to enforce said laws for that 
reason ; that there were three or more negi'oes voted on said date at said election 
at said voting place. 

Dated this 11th day of November, 1912. 

F. H. Morris. 
State of Oklahoma. County of Oldalioma. ss: 

The within statement was subscribed and sworn to by F. H. Morris, before 
me. the undersigned notar.v public, this llth day of November. 1912. 

[seal.] John Roaten, Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 11. 1916. 



Exhibit K 13. 

State of Oklahoma. Count]/ of OklaJioma. ss: . 

C. E. Burnsworth. of lawful age. being first duly sworn, deposes and states : 
That he is a resident of Oklahoma County. State of Oklahoma; that he resided 
in Deep Fork Township of said county and is a legal voter therein ; that he was 



104 CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 

such a resident of said township on the 5th day of NoA^ember, 1912; that he 
was the duly appointed, qualified, and acting inspector of elections in said 
township on said date, to wit, the 5th day of November, .1912, the day upon 
which was held the county. State, and National election ; that he was present 
on said date at the regular voting place of said township to perform his duties 
as such election officer ; that he remained there acting in such capacity through- 
out the day of said election; that as such election officer, at said place and 
date aforesaid, this affiant tried to follow the laws of the State of Oklahoma 
with reference to allowing or not allowing persons to vote at said election ; that 
in said township and on said date there were a number of negroes, or persons 
of African descent, Fred Trent and others, who presented themselves at said 
election to vote, and called for the county. State, and National ballot; that 
said negroes could not read or write; that this affiant or one of the other of 
said election officials challenged said persons on the ground that they, and each 
of them, were not legal voters under the laws of the State of Oklahoma in that 
such persons could not qualify under the constitutional provision usually known 
as the " grandfather clause " ; that said negroes insisted upon voting at said 
election in disregard of the said laws and in violation thereof and under the 
objections of this affiant ; that said persons of African descent did vote at said 
■election aforesaid ; that this affiant did not take the necessary means to prevent 
said negroes from voting as aforesaid, for the reason that this affiant had 
received threatening letters from Federal officers warning this affiant against 
enforcing or trying to enforce said laws, particularly the said " grandfather 
clause " ; that he had also heard that other election officers in this State had 
been prosecuted by the Federal officers for enforcing said laws, and this affiant 
w^as afraid to enforce said laws for that reason ; that there were three or more 
negroes voted on said date at election at said voting place. 
Dated this 11th day of November, 1912. 

C. E. BUBNSWOBTH. 

State of Oklahoma, County of Oklahoma, ss: 

The within statement was subscribed and sworn to by C. E. Burnsworth 
before me, the undersigned notary public, this 11th day of November, 1912. 

[seal.] John Roaten, Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 11, 1916. 



Exhibit K 14. 

State of Oklahoma, County of Oklahoma, ss: 

Louis Vorel, of lawful age, being first duly sworn, deposes and states that he. 
is a resident of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma ; that he resides in Luther 
Township, in said county, and is a legal voter therein ; that he was such a resi- 
dent of said township on the 5th day of November, 1912 ; thai: he was the duly 
appointed, qualified, and acting inspector of elections in said township on said 
date, to wit, the 5th day of November, 1912, the day upon which was held the 
county, State, and National election ; that he was present on said date at the 
regular voting place of said township to perform his duties as such election 
officer; that he remained there acting iu such capacity throughout the day of 
said election ; that as such election officer at said place and date aforesaid this 
affiant tried to follow the laws of the State of Oklahoma with reference to 
allowing or not allowing persons to vote at said election ; that in said township 
and on said date there were a number of negroes, or persons of African descent, 
to wit. Green Howard and others, who presented themselves at said election to 
vote and called for the State and National ballot ; that this affiant or one of the 
other of said election officials challenged said persons on the ground that they, 
and each of them, were not legal voters under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, 
in that such persons could not qualify under the constitutional provision usually 
known as the "grandfather clause"; that said negroes insisted upon voting at 
said election in disregard of the said laws and in violation thereof and under 
the ob.1ections of this affiant ; that said persons of African descent did vote at 
said election aforesaid; that this affiant did not take the necessary means to 
prevent said negi'oes from voting as aforesaid for the reason that this affiant 
had received threatening letters from Federal officers warning this affiant 
against enforcing or trying to enforce said laws, particularly the said " grand- 
father clause"; that he had also heard that other election officers in this State 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 105 

had been prosecuted by the Federal officers for enforcing said laws, and this 
affiant was afraid to enforce said laws for that reason ; that there were 15 or 
more negroes voted on said date at said election at said voting place. 

Louis VOREL. 

State of Oklahoma, Co'unty of Oklahoma, ss: 

The within statement was subscribed and sworn to by Louis Vorel before me, 
the undersigned notary public, this 11th day of November, 1912. 

[seal.] John Roaten, Notary PuUic. 

My commission expires January 11, 1916. 

I, Mary S. Hill, a notary public in and for the county of Oklahoma, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above-named witnesses, whose names are 
severally subscribed to the foregoing depositions, were by me first duly sworn 
to testify the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in the case 
aforesaid, and that the depositions by them respectively subscribed were reduced 
to writing by J. M. Harkin, a disinterested person, and subscribed by the respec- 
tive witnesses in my presence, and the same were taken on the days set forth 
in said depositions, between the hours of 8 o'clock a. m. and 6 o'clock p. m., in 
the office of Giddings & Giddings, 135^ West Main Street, Oklahoma City, Okla., 
as specified in the notice thereto attached, and that I am not attorney or a rela- 
tive of either of said parties, or otherwise interested in the event of said action. 

[seal.] Mast S. Hill, 

Notary Public, Oklahoma County, Okla. 

My commission expires November 21, 1915. 



TESTIMONY FOR CONTESTEE. 



NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS. 

The said John J. Carney, contestant in the above-entitled cause, and Giddings 
& Giddings, liis attorneys of record, will hereby take notice that the con- 
testee, Dick T. Morgan, will on the 26th day of February. 1913. between the 
hours of S o'clock a. m. and 6 o'clock p. m. of said day. take the depositions 
of divers and sundry witnesses, whose names, address, and residence are herein- 
after set forth, to be used as evidence in the said above-entitled cause, at the 
Knights and Ladies of Security Hall on the south side of Main Street in block 
65 of Watonga, city of Watonga, county of Blaine. State of Oklahoma, before 
Theodore Graalmann, a notary public in and for Blaine County. State of Okla- 
homa, and that the talking of said evidence or depositions will be adjourned 
and continued from day to day at the same times or hours and place, and before 
the said notary public, and between the same hours, until the same are completed. 

That the names, address, and residence of the witnesses whose depositions or 
evidence will be so taken are as follows, to wit : 



Name. 



Post office. 



Township. 



County. 



State. 



J. D. Adamson 

Otis Work 

RovTole 

J. H. Riggs 

Harvey Laughlin . . . 

J. R. Whisler 

William Dyke 

G. W. Grate 

J.W.Winn 

W.J. Wills 

Ira Burford 

C. E. Harriott 

R. I. Temple 

William Hagen 

H. H. Georke 

Claude C. Barnes 

S.L. Clerk 

A. C. Sherod 

T. A. Barnes 

George H. Butler 

E. T. Davis 

L. McClure 

John V. Howry 

Frank Beals 

W. L. Southe 

A. C. Dickens 

R. G. Rycroft 

W. L. Beals 

W. H. Garriott 

J. F. Spangler 

J. C. Overholser 

E. T.Richardson... 
Charles Noble 

F. xV. Knott 

J. L. French, sr 

Everett A. Mitchell. 

R. B. McGuire 

John E. Lyons 

H. J.Inlow 

T. W. Martin 

A. L. Slavton 

F. A. Wallen 

Archie Baker 

Cllve Reichman 

ClydeP. Hantz 



Watonga. . . 
Fay 

do 

Watonga. . . 

do 

do 

Fay 

Watonga. . . 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Hitchcock.. 



do.... 

do.... 

do.... 

do.... 
Hitchcock. 
Watonga. . 

do 

do.... 

do 

do.... 

do.... 

do.... 

Fay 

do.... 

do.... 

do.... 

do.... 

do.... 

do.... 

Canton 

do.... 

do 

do.... 

do.... 

do.... 

do 

Geary 

do.... 

Greenfield. 



Arapaho . 

do.... 

do... 

do... 

do... 

do... 

do... 

Watonga. 

do... 

do... 

do... 

do... 

do... 

do... 

Cedar Valley 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

East Dixon 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

West Dixon 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Canton 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

West Lincoln 

do... 

do... 



Blaine . 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 



Oklahoma. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 
Do. 



106 



CABlSrEY VS. MOEGAN. 



107 



Name. 


Post office. 


Township. 


Coimty. 


State. 


Rov H. Snyder 


Geary 

Greenfield... 
.. . do 


West Lincoln 
do 


Blaine 

do 


Oklahoma. 


Jess Cooper 


Do. 


A. L. Ermen . 


do 


do 


Do. 


W.E.Thompson.. 


Watonga. . . 


do 


do 


Do. 


J. C. Shafer 


Carlton 

. do 


Carlton 


do 


Do. 


Davfi Sinnpr 


do 


do 


Do. 


A. E. Condonier ... . ... 


. . do 


do 


do 


Do. 


George White 


do 


do 


do 


Do. 


John B. Lemon. . 


.do 


do 


do 


Do. 


John McGee 


do 


do 


do 


Do. 


James Dimmitt 


do 


do 


do 


Do. 


E . W. AVilliams 


Geary 

do 


East Lincoln 
do 


do 

do 


Do. 


Martin Giger 


Do. 


E . Keelv 


do 


do 


do 


Do. 


John C. Funk 


Watonga 

do 


do 


do 


Do. 


Henrv Husenmever 


do 


do 


Do. 


Henrv Spreitzer 


Geary 


do 


do 


Do. 


William Carter 


do 


. ...do 


do 


Do. 


Evan C. Covle 


do 


Logan 


do 


Do. 


Andv T. Andreson 


Etna 


do 


do 


Do. 


J. F. Irving 




. .do 


do 


Do. 


E. M. Scott 


.. do 


. do 


do 


Do. 


C.E.Albin 


.. do 


do 


.... do 


Do. 


J.A.Dunn 


Greenfield... 
Gearv . 


do 


.... do 


Do. 


Fred Strong 


do 


. . do 


Do. 


C. C. Link 


Ferguson — 
do 


Flynn... 


. do 


Do. 


George Schuber 


do 


do 


Do. 


Henrv RifFel. 


do 


do 


do . . 


Do. 


John M. Enlow 


.....do 


do 


do 


Do. 


David Hess 


do 


do 


do 


Do. 


C. L. Hollender 


do 


do 


do 


Do. 


L. R. Howell 


do 


do 


do 


Do. 


Tom Mosley 


Watonga. . . 




do 


Do. 


Dan Hogari 


Geary 




do 


Do. 


W. C. Broadv 


O'Keene. . 




.... do 


Do. 




AVatonga. 




. do 


Do. 


E. N. Pearson 


do 




do 


Do. 


W. H. PhOlips 


do 




do 


Do. 


E . H. Lookal)augh 


do 




do 


Do. 


Semour Foose 


do 




do 


Do. 


E. R. Tavlor 


do 




do 


Do. 


J. C. Craven 


do 


::::::::::: 


do 


Do. 


Carrie I>ambley 


.... do 




do 


Do. 




do 




do 


Do. 













Dick T. 
B.v Morgan 



Morgan. Contestce, 
& Deupree, 

His Attorneys. 



Service of the above notice is hereby acknowlerlgecl to have been marie on me 
and a true and correct copy thereof acknowledged to have been delivered to 
and received by me on this the 21st day of February, 1913. 

John J. Carney, Contestant. 

DEPOSITIONS. 

Depositions of witnesses taken to be used in an action pending before the 
Honorable House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United 
States of America, wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan 
is contestee. in pursuance of the notice hereto attached, and at the time and 
place therein stated, and the contestant appeared by his attorney, A. L. Emery, 
and the contestee appeared by Morgan eS: Deupree, his attorneys, and thereupon 
the said contestee produced the following witnesses in order, to wit : 

Testimony of E. R. TAYLOR. 

E. R. Taylor, who being first duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, deposeth and says, in answer to questions 
propounded to him, as follows : 

Examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. State your name and residence? — ^A. E. R. Taylor, Watonga, Okla. 

Q. What official position, if any, do you now hold? — ^A. Clerk of the district 
court of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. How long have you held this position? — A. Since the 6th day of January, 
191S. 



108 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN". 

Q. Have you iu yonr possession and custody tlie returns and documents re- 
lating to the result of the election lield on November 5, 1912, in this county? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did these records come into your possession? — A. They were turned 
over to me by my predecessor. 

Q. What was the occasion, if you know, of their being placed in the posses- 
sion of the clerk of the district court of this county? — A. By virtue of contests 
that were pending in the district court. 

Q. While they have been in your possession have they been safely kept from 
chance of change or alteration and free from opportunity to change or alter 
them? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will now ask you to produce the oflBcial returns of the election held in 
Arapaho township for State offices on November 5, 1912. 

(Witness produces document.) 

Q. What is that you now hold in your hand? — ^A. Certificate of vote, precinct 
No. 8, Arapaho township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. I will ask the notary to mark the sheet, identified by the witness as " Con- 
testee's Exhibit No. 1." 

Q. I will ask you to produce the returns of precinct No. 20, Watonga town- 
ship, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

(Witness produces instrument.) 

Q. What is that instrument ?— A. Certificate of vote of precinct No. 20, 
Watonga township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. I will ask the notary to mark the instrument " Contestee's Exhibit No. 2." 

Q. I will ask you to produce the returns of Cedar Valley Township No. 6, 
Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

(Witness produced instrument.) 

Q. What is this instrument? — ^A. Certificate of vote. Cedar Galley Township, 
precinct No. 6, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. I will ask the notary to mark the instrument " Contestee's Exhibit No. 3." 

Q. Will you now produce the return of the general election held November 
5, 1912, in precinct No. 9, East Dixon Township, Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma? 

(Witness produces instrument.) 

Q. What is the instrument you now present?— A. Certificate of vote, precinct 
No. 9, Dixon Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. I will ask the notary to mark the " Contestee's Exhibit No. 4 " for identi- 
fication. 

Q. Will you now produce the returns of the general election held on Novem- 
ber 5, 1912, in precinct 28, West Dixon Township? 

(Witness produces instrument.) 

Q. Please state what the instrument you produce is. — A. Certificate of vote, 
precinct 28, West Dixon Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. I will ask the notary to mark the instrument produced as "Contestee's 
Exhibit 5 " for identification. 

Q. Will you now produce the returns of the general election held in precinct 
No. 23, Canton Township, Blaine County, Okla. 

(Witness produces instrument.) 

Q. What is the instrument you now produce? — A. Certificate of vote of precinct 
23, Canton Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. We now ask that the notary mark the instrument " Contestee's Exhibit 
6 " for identification. 

Q. I will ask you to produce the returns of precinct No. 30, East Lincoln 
Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, November 5, 1912. 

(Witness produces instrument.) 

Q. What is the instrument you now produce? — A. Certificate of vote of pre- 
cinct 30, Lincoln Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. We now ask the notary to mark the instrument produced as " Contestee's 
Exhibit No. 7 " for identification. 

Q. I will now ask you to produce the return of the general election held in 
precinct No. 29, Carlton Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

(Witness produces instrument.) 

Q. What is the instrument you now produce? — A. Certificate of vote of pre- 
cinct 29, Carlton Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. We now ask that the instrument be marked " Contestee's Exhibit No. 8 " 
for identification. 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 109 

Q. We now ask you to produce the returns of the general election held 
November 5, 1912, in precinct No. 10, West Lincoln Township, Blaine County, 
Okla. 

(Witness produces instrument.) 

Q. W^hat is the instrument you now produce? — A. Certificate of vote of pre- 
cinct No. 10, of West Lincoln Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. We now ask that the instrument just produced be marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit No. 9 " for identification. 

Q. I will now ask you to produce the returns of the general election held 
November 5, 1912, in precinct No. 13, Flynn Township, Blaine County, State 
of Oklahoma. 

(Witness produces instrument.) 

Q. I will ask you what this instrument is. — ^A. Certificate of vote of precinct 
No. 13, Flynn Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. I will ask the notary to mark the instrument just produced " Exhibit 
10," for identification. 

Q. I will now ask you to produce the returns of the general election held 
November 5, 1912, in precinct No. 12, Logan Township, Blaine County, State 
of Oklahoma. 

(Witness produces instrument.) 

Q. What is the instrument you produce? — A. Certificate of vote of precinct 
No. 12, Logan Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. We now ask that the notary mark the instrument just produced " Con- 
testee's Exhibit 11," for identification. 

Q. These returns that you have just produced, are they the returns on the 
State ticket or on the county ticket? — A. State ticlcet. 

E. R. Tayloe. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of February, A. D. 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Ptihlic. 
My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Testimony of L. R. HOWELL. 

Q. State your name and residence. — A. L. R. Howell ; my post-office address is 
Homestead, and my residence Flynn Township, precinct 13. 

Q. "What official position did you hold at the general election held in that 
voting precinct on November 5, 1912? — A. Judge. 

Q. You were present at that election at the voting booth and acted as judge 
at that election ; did you ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I hand you contestee's Exhibit 10 and ask you what it is. — A. It is a 
certificate of vote of Flynn Township. 

Q. I will ask you to notice the signatures attached at the bottom of the 
exhibit and will ask you if you are acquainted with the gentlemen whose 
names appear signed thereto. 

(Objection. To which we object as immaterial.) 

A. J am. 

Q. Are you acquainted with the signatures of the five men whose names 
appear signed thereto? 

(Objection as calling for a conclusion from the witness.) 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see the men whose signatures appear signed thereto sign their 
names thereto? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. "Who acted in that precinct as counters in the general election held in 
precinct No. 13. Flynn Township, Blaine County. State of Oklahoma? — A. John 
M. Enlow, C, C, Link, George Schuber, Henry Riffle. 

Q. Who acted as inspector at that election? — A. C. L. Hollander. 

Q. "When did those gentlemen sign that instrument? — ^A. The evening of the 
5th of November, 1912. 

Q. I will ask you to examine the instrument and state whether or not there 
has been any change, alteration, or mutilation thereof since you saw it signed. — 
A. None, except the two check marks in the certificates. 

Q. Do you note any change having been made in the statement of the votes 
cast in that precinct as to any of the candidates? — A. I do not. 

Q. We now offer in evidence contestee's Exhibit 10. 

(Objected to for the reason that the. exhibit has not been identified fully, and 
that the witness has not shown himself qualified to answer.) 



110 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

Cross-examinatiou by Mr. Emeky : 

Q. Mr. Howell, you are a Republican in politics, are you?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. In your precinct there are a large number of negro voters, are there? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and an improper 
cross-examination. ) 

A. It all depends on what you consider a large number. 

Q. How many negroes voted at your precinct at the day of election? 

(Objected to as irrelevant and immaterial and improper cross-examination.) 

A. Do j^ou want the number given? 

Q. Just answer the best way you can. — A. There were six voted, if that is 
what you wanted to know, the number. 

Q. Was the test applied to any of these six to show their qualification to vote? 

(Objected to as improper cross-examination and incompetent, irrelevant, and 
immaterial. ) 

A. Not at this last election. 

Q. Mr. Howell, if you are acquainted with Homer Boardman, the present 
United States district attorney, who was Mr. Morgan's campaign manager? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and as assuming a state of facts not 
proven, and as improper cross-examination.) 

Q. Mr. Howell, you knew that at the time of the last election Mr. Boardman 
was United States district attorney, did you? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination. ) 

A. I did not. 

Q. Did you know that Mr. Boardman was Mr. Morgan's campaign manager 
in the election of 1910? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination.) 

A. I was told he was. 

Q. Do you remember of receiving, prior to the last election, a letter from Mr. 
Boardman, together with an article entitled " Talk it over with your wife," in 
regard to enforcing the grandfather clause on the negro ? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, an improper cross- 
examination. ) 

A. Not to my knowledge. 

(Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the cross-examination of the 
witness for the reason the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial; and 
improper cross-examination, the same being an attempt to prove upon cross- 
p- amiuation statements and allegations contained in contestant's notice of 
' ntest.) 

Q. Did you hear of such a letter, Mr. Howell? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and improper cross- 
examination.) 

A. I did not. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. Mr. Howell, were you present at the closing of the polls at this precinct on 
election day? — ^A. I was. 

Q. After the closing of the polls, what was done by the election board?— A. 
The ballots were counted. 

Q. Was there a tally sheet made up from the ballots themselves by the 
board? — A. There was. 

Q. Were you present while the counting was being done? — ^A. I was. 

Q. After the tally sheet was made up, what was done?— A. Signed up by the 
board. 

Q. The tally sheet was signed up by the board? — A. Yes. 

Q. Then from the tally sheet they made out the return or the certificate of 
vote marked " Contestee' s Exhibit 10 " ?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, after the returns were made out and signed up and the tally sheet 
signed up. what was done with the returns, the ballots, and the unused ballots? 

(Objected to for the reason that the witness has not shown himself qualified 
to answer.) 

A. Placed in the envelopes and sealed and put in the boxes, except a copy 
of the returns kept by the inspectors. 

Q. Then what was done with the box? 

(Objected to for the same reason.) 

A. It was locked up. 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN". HI 

Q. What was theu done with the box? 

(Objection for the same reason.) 

A. The inspector took it in his charge. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Emery: 

Q. You have nothing to do with the box after the returns are placed there- 
in? — A. I lock one lock on each box. 

Q. Did you have anything more to do with the box or boxes after locking- 
them? — A. No. sir. " 

L. E,. Howell. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of February, A. D. 1913. 
[seal.] Theodoke Geaalman, 

Notary PuMic in Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Contestee's Exhibit 10. 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned official counters for the election held at precinct No 13 
of Flynn Township of Blaine County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of November 
A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at said precinct 
in said election for the various candidates and for and against State questions 
Nos. 40 and 45 voted on is herein set forth in written words : 
For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat, thirteen (13). 

P. J. Loewen, Republican, twenty-four (24). 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist, eight "(8). 
For presidential electors. State at large: 

Robert. A. Baird. Democrat, fourteen (14). 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat, fourteen (14). 

H. H. Brenner. Democrat, fourteen (14). 

Joseph W. Fostpr, Democrat, fourteen (14). 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat, fourteen (14). 

Sam Massingale. Democrat, fourteen (14). 

S. H. Mayes. Democrat, fourteen (14). 

David Ratiier, Democrat, fourteen (14). 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, fourteen (14). 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat, fourteen (14). ,..i 

George M. Flick, Republican, twenty-one (21). 

Marshall W. Hiuch, Republican, twenty-one (21). 

M. P. Howser, Republican, twenty-one (21). 

H. L. Hix, Republican, twenty (20). 

Lindsey L. Long. Republican,'^ twenty-one (21). 

W. L. McWilliams. Republican, twenty-one (21). 

Ret Millard, Republican, twenty-one (21). 

George E. Nickel, Republican, twenty-one (21). 

Joseph G. Ralls. Republican, twenty-one (21). 

W. A. Williams, Republican, twenty-one (21). 

E. B. Barns, Socialist, nine (9). 

C. B. Boylan. Socialist, eight (8). 

A. R. Bradshaw. Socialist, eisht (8). 

W. H. Davis, eight (8). 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist, eight (8). 

Ahen Fields, Socialist, eight (8). 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist, eight (8). 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, nine (9). 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist, eight (8). 

Thos. W. Woodrow, Socialist, eight (8). 

M. Simpson Allen. Prohibition, one (1), 

J. E. Brewer, Prohibition, one (1). 

Chas. Brown, Prohibition, one (1). 

S. H. Brown, Prohibition, one (1). 

Taylor H. Ebersole. Prohibition, one (1). ' 

G. M. Hadduck, Prohibition, one (1). 

Chas. O. Jennings, Prohibition, one (1). 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibition, one (1). 



112 CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 

For presidential electors. State at large — Continued, 
G. E. Eouch, Prohibition, one (1). 
H. E. Strickler, Prohibition, one (1). 
For United States Senator: 

Robt. L. Owen, Democrat, fifteen (15). 
J. T. Dickerson, Republican, twenty-three (23). 
John G. Wills, Socialist, eight (8). 
For Congressman, State at large : 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat, fourteen (14). 
Joe B. Thompson, Democrat, fourteen (14). 
Claude Weaver, Democrat, fourteen (14). 
Alvin D. Alien, Republican, twenty-two (22). 
Jas. L. Brown, Republican, twenty-three (23). 
Emory D. Brownlee, Republican, twenty- two (22). 
Oscar Ameringer, Socialist, ten (10). 
J. T. Cumbie, Socialist, eight (8). 
J. Luther Langston, Socialist, eight (8). 
For justice supreme court, first district : 

John B. Turner, Democrat, fourteen (14). 
Charles Alston Cook, Republican, twenty-two (22). 
For judge criminal court appeals, southern district : 
Henry M. Furman, Democrat, fourteen (14). 
George T. Ralls, Republican, twenty-two (22). 
E. S. Hurt, Socialist, eight (8). 
For Representative in Congress, second district : 
P. D. McKinzy, eight (8). 
J. J. Carney, thirteen (13). 
Dick T. Morgan, twenty-two (22). 
For State senator, sixteenth district: 
S. H. Henderson, seven (7). 
E. J. Warner, twenty-six (26). 
M. B. Carley, twelve (12). 
For representative: 

John T. Long, nine (9). ' 

W. R. Kelly, fifteen (15). 
J. Jamison, twenty-two (22). 
State question No. 40, initiative petition No. 25 j 
Shall it be adopted? 
Yes, eleven (11). 
No, fifteen (15). 
State question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17 : 
Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? 
Yes. thirteen (13). 
No, nine (9). 
We further certify that there were — spoiled ballots, the consecutive numbers 
of which were numbers , and there were 209 unused ballots, the con- 
secutive numbers of which were from and including number 58 to and including 
number 266. 

C. C. Link, 
George Schuber, 
Henry Riffel, 
John M. Enlow, 

Official Counters. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 

C. L. Hollander. 
This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 
State or Oklahoma, Blame Covnty, ss: 

I, Theodore Graalman, notary public in and for Blaine County, State of Okla- 
homa, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, complete, and en- 
tire copy of the"^ Exhibit 10 introduced in evidence by the contestee in the taking 
of depositions or evidence before me in the case now pending before the House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee. 
[seal.] Theod-ore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
My commission expires January 17, 1915. 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. * 113: 

Testimony of W. L. BEALS. 

Mr. W. L. Beals, called to testify after being sworn to tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth : 

Q. State your name and residence. — A. W. K Beals. 

Q. What is your residence?— A. Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. What voting precinct do you live in? — A. No, 9. 

Q. That is East Dixon Township, is it? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At the last general election held on November 5, 1912, what official po- 
sition, if any, did you hold? — A. Judge. 

Q. Were you present during the entire day of the election up to the time the 
board disbanded? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were duly qualified and sworn to act as judge in said precinct at 
said election, were you? — A. Yes. 

Q. I will ask you to inspect Contestee's Exhibit 4 and will ask you to state 
what it is. — A. Certificate of vote. 

Q. I will ask you to examine the signatures at the bottom and will ask you 
If you were present when those signatures were placed thereon. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who acted as counters in said precinct at said election? — A. .John Howry, 
Frank Beals, W. L. Souther, L. McClure. 

Q. Who acted as inspector in that precinct at said election? — A. Mr. R. C. 
Rycroft. 

Q. I will ask you if you are acquainted with the signatures of those par- 
ties. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is the signature on Contestee's Exhibit 4 of the counters and the in- 
spector of said precinct? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present when this certificate of the vote was being written 
out? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present at the time the counters were making out the tally 
sheets? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present at the time the total vote was transferred from the 
tally sheet to this certificate of vote? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was this certificate of vote taken from the tally sheet made by the 
counters? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Examine Exhibit 4 and state whether or not it is in the same condition 
as when signed up by the counters and the inspector. — -A. Yes, sir. 

Q. After the certificate was signed up what was done with it? — A. They 
were all put in an envelope and sealed up after being signed. 

Q. What was then done with it? — A, Put in a box. 

Q. Locked up?^ — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What was then done with it? — ^A. The inspector took charge of the boxes. 

Q. Is this exhibit here, Contestee's Exhibit 4, one of the official returns of the 
votes cast in the precinct for State officers? — A. Yes, sir. 

Contestee now offers in evidence Contestee's Exhibit No. 4 and asks that a 
true and correct copy thereof be attached to the deposition of this witness. 

(Objected to, for the reason that the same has not been proven or authenti- 
cated and the witness not showing himself qualified to do so.) 

Cross-examination by Mr. Emery: 

Q. Mr. Beals, did any Indians or negroes or Indians vote in your district? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination.) 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many negroes and how many Indians? 

(Objected to as incompetent and immaterial, and improper cross-examina- 
tion. ) 

A. Well, I think there were about six or seven negroes ; I think there was 
about five Indians. 

Q. How many — did any of these negroes or Indians take the test to show 
their qualification to vote? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. About how many did not take the test? 

(Objected to as irrelevant and incompetent, and improper cross-examina- 
tion. ) 

A. The Indians just walked up and voted if they were of age, just like any- 
body else. 

Q. Do you know if these Indians could read or write? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and improper cross-examination, and 
calling for a conclusion of the witness, he having not testified that he knows. ) 

4252—13 8 



114 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN". 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Were they blanket Indians? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and improper cross-examination.) 

A. Didn't have none on. 

Q. How many negroes voted vt'ithout taking the test? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and improper cross-examination.) 

A. What test do you mean? 

Q. I have reference to the test as to whether or i^ot they were able to read 
• and write any section of the State constitution. 

(Objected to for the same reason last above stated.) 

A. I think there were three. 

~-Q. Why was the test not applied to these three? 

K Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination. ) 

A. The freedman act; their father was a white man. 

Q. Is that what they claimed? — -A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The election officers just took their word for it, did they? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and improper cross-examination.) 

A. Yes, sir. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Mokgan : 
(Comes now the contestee and moves to strike out the cross-examination for 
contestant for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and all im- 
proper cross-examination, and for the reason that the same constitutes an 
attempt on the part of the contestant to prove an allegation in contestant's 
notice of contest.) 

W. L. Beals. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Theodoee Graalman, Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Contestee's Exhibit 4. 
Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned, official counters for the election held at precinct No. — 

of Township of County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 

A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at said precinct 
in said election for the various candidates and for and against State questions 
Nos. 40 and 45 voted on, is herein set forth in written words : 
For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat, thirty-one (31). 

P. J. Loewen, Republican, thirty-six (36). 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist, twenty-three (23). 
For presidential electors, State at large: 

Robert A. Baird, Democrat, thirty-one (31). 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat, thirty-two (32). 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat, thirty-three (33). 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat, thirty-three (33). 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat, thirty-two (32). 

Sam Massingale, Democrat, thirty-three (33). 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat, thirty-two (32). 

David Ratner, Democrat, thirty -three (33). 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, thirty-four (34). 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat, thirty-three (33). 

George M. Flick, forty- two (42). 

Marshall W. Hinch. Republican, forty-one (4l>. 

M. P. Howser, Republican, forty (40). 

H. L. Dix. Republican, forty-one (41). 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican, forty-two (42). 

W. L. McWilliams. Republican, forty (40). 

Ret Millard, Republican, forty-one (41). 

George E. Nickel, Republican, forty-one (41). 

Joseph G. Ralls. Republican, forty (40). 

W\ A. Williams, Republican, forty (40). 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

C. B. Boylan, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

W. H. Davis, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 



CARKEY VS. MOEGAIST. * 115, 

For presidential electors, State at large — Continued. 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

Allen Fields, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

Allen Fields, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

A. W. Eensliaw, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

Thomas W. Woodrow, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibitionist, two (2). 

J. E. Brewer, Prohibitionist, two (2). 

Charles Brown, Prohibitionist, two (2). 

S. H. Brown, Prohibitionist, two (2). 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibitionist, two (2). 

G. M. Hadduck, Prohibitionist, two (2). 

Charles O. Jennings, Prohibitionist, two (2). 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibitionist, two (2). 

G. E. Rouch, Prohibitionist, two (2). 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibitionist, two (2). 
For Untied States Senator : 

Robert L. Owen, Democrat, thirty-six (36). 

J. T. Dickerson, Republican, thirty-five (35). 

John G. Wills, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 
For Congressman, State at large : 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat, thirty-four (34). 

Joe B. Thompson, Democrat, thirty-four (34). 

Claude Weaver, Democrat, thirty-three (33). 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican, thirty-six (36). 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican, thirty-six (36). 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican, thirty-seven (37). 

Oscar Ameringer, Socialist, twenty- three (23). 

J. T. Cumbie, Socialist, twenty-three (23). 

J. Luther Langston, Socialist, twenty-three (23). 
For justice supreme court first district: 

John B. Turner. Democrat, thirty-four (34). 

Charles Alston Cook, Republican, thirty-four (34). 
For judge criminal court appeals southern district : 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat, thirty-four (34). 

George T. Ralls, Republican, thirty -five (35). 

E. S. Hurt, Socialist, twenty-four (24). 
For Representative in Congress, — district: 

P. D. McKinzie, twenty-three (23). 

Dick T. Morgan, thirty-nine (39). 

J. J. Carney, thirty-three (33). 
For State senator, — district : 

S. H. Hendrickson, twenty-four (24). 

E. J. Warner, thirty-eight (38). 

M..B. Carley, thirty-two (32). 
For Representative: 

John T. Long, thirty-four (34). 

Geo. Jamison, thirty-three (33). 

W. R. Kelley, twenty -nine (29). 
State question No. 40, initiative petition No. 25 : 

Shall it be adopted? 
Yes, twenty (20). 
No. fifty-nine (59). 
State question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17 : 

Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? 
Yes, fifty-four (54). 
No, sixteen (16). 
We further certify that there was one spoiled ballot the consecutive num- 
ber of which was No. 64, and there were 158 unusual ballots the consecutive 
numbers of which were from and including Nos. 108 to and including No. 266. 

Feank Beals, 
w. l. sottthee, 
L. McClube, 
John V. Howey, 
R. G. Rycroft, 

Official Counter's. 



116 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 5tb day of Novenaber, A. D. 1912. 
This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I, Theodore Graalman, notary public in and for Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct, complete, 
and entire copy of the Exhibit 4 introduced in evidence by^ the contestee in the 
taking of depositions or evidence before me in the cause now pending before 
the House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States 
of America wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is con- 
testee. 

[SEAL.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Puhlic, Blaine County, Olcla. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Testimony of R. G. RYCROFT. 

Direct examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. State your name, voting precinct in which you reside. — A. R. G. Rycroft, 
East Dixon, No. 9, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold at the general election held 
in the said precinct on the .5th day of November, 1912. in said precinct. — A. I 
was inspector. 

Q. Calling your attention to Contestee's Exhibit 4, I will ask you if that is 
your signature at the bottom thereof? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. The gentlemen whose name appears as official counters acted in that 
capacity at that election, did they? — ^A. They did. 

Q. After the ballot box containing this certificate of vote was turned into 
your possession on the 5th day of November. 1012. what did you do with it? — 
A. I delivered it to the election board of Blaine County the morning of the 6th? 

Q. This box was in your possession and under your control during the time 
when it was turned over to you on the evening of the 5th of November and the 
time you delivered it to the county election board on the 6th day of November, 
was it? — A. Yes, sir. 

Cross-examination : 

Q. Mr. Rycroft, just tell briefly about negroes and Indians voting in your 
precinct. 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination. ) 

A. Well, there were 6 or 7 Indians and 11 negroes voted. 

Q. Could they read and write? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination. ) 

A. I couldn't sny as to the Indians. Part of the negroes were tested and the 
balance were not. Two of them signed affidavits that their grandfathers were 
freedmen. 

Q. Did you see that letter of Mr. Boardman and that article " Talk it over 
with your wife," before the election? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination. ) 

A. I did. 

Q. What effect, if any, did these matters have on your mind, or on the mind 
of the election board in reference to the enforcement of the grandfather clause? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination, and also as calling for a conclusion and opinion of the witness.) 

A. Well, it made me careful in putting the test for fear of getting it too 
strong. 

Q. Did you know that Mr. Boardman was at the time United States district 
attorney ? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination. 

Q. I heard that he had got the appointment and that his name was signed 
to the letter. 

Q. Did you know that he had been in the election of 1910 Mr. Morgan's 
campaign manager? 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 117 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination. ) 

A. I probably knew tbat at tbe time, but I didn't give that any tbougbt. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Moegan : 

Q. Mr. Rycroft, you belong to tbe Democrat Party, do you not? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. All of the negroes who voted except two were tested, were they not? — 
A. No, sir ; I think not. There were about three or four that were not tested. 

Q. Then, as I understand you, 7 of the 11 negroes were tested? — A. Six of the 
seven were tested as to their qualifications to read and write and the others 
signed affidavits. 

Q. The affidavits you speak of were the affidavits referred to above where 
those negroes swore that their grandfather was a white man? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now, the remainder of the negroes who voted — how did you come to let 
them vote without testing them? — A. I think I was satisfied with their test in 
the election before. 

Q. You were inspector before and had tested them ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How did you test the negroes whom you tested that day? — ^A. I tested 
them as to whether they could read and write. 

( Comes now the contestee and moves to strike out all of the cross-examination 
of this witness for the reason that the same is improper cross-examination.) 

R. G. Ryceoft. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodoee Graalman, 

Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Testimony of F. A. KNOTT. 

Direct examination by Mr. Moegan : 

Q. State your name and the voting precinct in which you live. — A. F. A. 
Knott, West Dixon, precinct No. 28. 

Q. State what, if any, official position you held at the general 
election held in that precinct on November 5, 1912. — ^A. Inspector. 

Q. Were the officers who presided at that election in all respects duly quali- 
fied to hold their office? — A. They were. 

Q. I will ask you to state who acted as counters at that election? — A. J. 0. 
Overholser, E. T. Richardson, J. F. Spangler, and W. H. Garriott. 

Q. Who acted as clerk at that election ?^ — A. D. H. Noble. 

Q. Was the election held in that precinct on that day in all respects regu- 
lar? — ^A. To the best of my knowledge it was. 

Q. Did the counters make up a tally sheet of the votes cast for candidates on 
the State ticket?— A. They did. 

Q. Did they prepare a certificate of the vote cast in said precinct for the 
candidates on the State ticket? — A. They did. 

Q. I will ask you to examine Contestee's Exhibit No. 5 and will ask you to 
state whether that is one of the official certificates of the vote so cast. — A. It is; 
I wrote out this copy myself. 

Q. Did you copy the number of votes cast as shown by this certificate from a 
tally sheet pi-epared by the counters? — A. I did. 

Q. Please examine the signatures of the counters and the clerk at the bottom 
of this certificate and I will ask you if you saw these men sign this certifi- 
cate?— A. I did. 

(Contestee now offers in evidence Contestee's Exhibit 5 and asks that a true, 
correct, and complete copy thereof be attached to the deposition of this witness.) 

Q. After this certificate was made out what was done with it? — A. It was 
placed in a package with the ballots voted and stub ballots and the package 
sealed and stamped, names of the judge and the clerk written across the end 
of it ; placed in the ballot box, the box locked and returned to the county elec- 
tion board of Blaine County on the following day. 

Q. This certificate was locked in the box on the night of November 5, 1912? — 
A. It was. 

Q. And was that box in your possession and under your control from the 
time that it was locked up to the time that it was given by you to the county 
election board? — A. It was. 



118 CARNEY VS. M0RGA2^. 

Q. Asking you to examine this certificate, I will ask you if it is in the same 
condition it was when it was placed in the box as regards any alterations or 
changes? — ^A. It is. 

F. A. Knott. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Graalman. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Contestee's Exhibit 5. 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned official counters for the election held at precinct No. 28 
(twenty-eight) of Dixon Township of Blaine County, on Tuesday, the 5th day 
of November, A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast 
at said precinct in said election for the various candidates and for and against 
State Questions Numbers 40 and 45 voted on is herein set forth in written words. 

For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat, twenty-seven (27). 

P. J. Loewen, Republican, thirty-seven (37). 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist, four (4). 
For presidential electors State at large : 

Robert A. Baird, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat, twentj^-six (26). 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

Sam Massingale, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

David Ratner, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

George M. Flick, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

M. P. Howser, thirty-eight (38). 

H. L. Hix, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

W. L. Mc Williams, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

Ret Millard, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

George E. Nickel, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

Joseph G. Ralls, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

W. A. Williams, thirty-eight (38). r 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist, four (4). 

G. B. Boy Ian, Socialist, four (4). 
; A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist, four (4). 
'. W. H. Davis, Socialist, four (4). 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist, four (4). 

Allen Fields, Socialist, four (4). 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist, four (4). 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, four (4). 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist, four (4). 

Thos. W. Woodrow. Socialist, four (4). 

M. Simpson Allen. Prohibitionist, one (1). 

J. E. Brewer, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

Chas. Brown, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

S. H. Brown, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

G. M. Hadduck, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

Chas. O. Jennings, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

G. E. Rouch, Prohibitionist, one (1). 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibitionist, one (1). 
For United States Senator : 

Robt. L. Owen, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

J. T. Dickerson. Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

John G. Wills, Socialist, four (4). 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAl^. * 119 

For Congressman, State at large: 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

Joe B. Tliompsou, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

Claude Weaver, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

Emory D. Brownlee. Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

Oscar Ameringer, Socialist, four (4). 

J. T. Cumbie, Socialist, four (4). 

J. Luther Langstou, Socialist, four (4). 
For justice supreme court, first district : 

John B. Turner, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

Charles Alston Cook. Republican, thirty-eight (38). 
For judge criminal court appeals, southern district: 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat, twenty-six (26). 

George T. Ralls, Republican, thirty-eight (38). 

E. S. Hurt, Socialist, four (4). 
For Representative in Congress, second district: 

Dick T. Morgan, thirty-nine (39). 

J. J. Carney, twenty-five (25). 

P. D. McKezie, four (4). 
For State senator. Sixteenth district : 

E. J. Warner, thirty-eight (38). 

M. B. Carley, twenty-six (26). 

S. H. Hendrickson, four (4). : 

For representative : 

George Jamison, thirty-six (36). 

W. R. Kelley, twenty -five (2-5). ■ -:- 

J. T. Long, six (6). 
State question No. 40, initiative petition No. 25 : - 

Shall it be adopted? 
Yes, eleven (11). . , 

No, twenty-seven (27). 
State question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17 : 

Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? 
Yes, twelve (12). 
•No, twenty-two (22). : , 

We further certify that there were no spoiled ballots, the consecutive numbers 

of which were numbers . and there were 194 unused ballots, the consecutive 

numbers of which were from and including No. 73 to and including No. 266. 

J. C. OVEEHOLSER, 

E. T. Richardson, 
J. F. Spangler, 
W. H. Garriott, 

Official counters. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 

C. H. Noble, Cleric. 

This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 
State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss. 

I, Theodore Graalman, notary public in and for Blaine County, State of Okla- 
homa, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, complete, and 
entire copy of the Exhibit 5 introduced in evidence by the contestee in the taking 
of depositions or evidence before me in the case now pending before the House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America^ 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Olclahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Testimony of HARVEY LAUGHLIN. 

Direct examination by Mr. Morgan : 
Q. State your name and the voting precinct in which you live? — A. Harvey 
Laughlin, Arapaho Township. No. 8, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 



120 CAKNEY VS. MORGAN. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold in said precinct, at the general 
election held therein on the 5th day of November, 1912? — A. I was clerk. 

Q. Who were the counters in that precinct at that election? — A. L. D. 
Adamson, Otis Work, J. H. Riggs, R. A. Tolle. 

Q. Who acted as inspector in that precinct? — A. J. R. Whistler. 

Q. Who acted as judge? — ^A. W. E. Dykes. 

Q. Were you present on election day, at all times from the opening of the 
polls until the counting was finished? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present when the counters made out their tally sheet? — ^A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. After the tally sheets were made up, and the votes counted, what further 
acts were done by the board? — ^A. The counters counted the votes and we filled 
out these certificates of the votes and then 

Q. I will ask you to examine Contestee's Exhibit 1 and ask you to state 
what it is? — A. Well, this is a certificate of the vote from that precinct. 

Q. As between the candidates on the State ticket?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you to examine the signature at the bottom of this instru- 
ment and will ask you whose signature it is? — ^A. This is my own signature. 

Q. Whose signatures are those at the bottom of this sheet designated as 
official counters? — A. Those are the signatures of the official counters of Arapa- 
hoe Township. 

Q. Did you see them sign it? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you to examine Contestee's Exhibit 1, and state what was done 
with this certificate, and state what was done after it was signed by the counters 
and yourself. — A. We placed this in an envelope and sealed it and put it in a 
box and locked the box and turned it over to Mr. Whistler. 

Q. What, if you know, did he do with it? — A. All I can swear to about that 
Is, we took this down to Mr. Whistler's house that night. 

Q. I will ask you to examine Contestee's Exhibit No. 1 and state whether it 
is in the same condition as when placed in the envelope by the board. — A. I be- 
lieve that is just the same as it was with the exception of the stenographer's 
mark " Exhibit 1." 

Q. Did you write out that certificate yourself? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you copy the entries of the votes cast in that precinct from one of the 
official tally sheets? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

(Contestee now offers in evidence Contestee's Exhibit 1 and asks that a true, 
correct, and complete copy thereof be attached to this deposition. ) 

Harvey Laughlin. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of February, 1913. 
[SEAL.] TiiEODOKE Gbaalman, Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Contestee's Exhibit 1. 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned official counters for the election held at precinct No. 8, 
of Arapaho Township, of Blaine County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 
A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at said 
precinct, in said election, for the various candidates, and for and against 
State questions Nos. 40 and 45, voted on, is herein set forth in written words. 

For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat, twenty-eight. 

P. .J. Loewen, Republican, forty-two. 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist, fourteen. 
For presidential electors. State at large: 

Robert A. Baird, Democrat, twenty-seven. 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat, twenty-seven. 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat, twenty-six. 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat, twenty-six. 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat, twenty-six. 

■Sam Massingale, Democrat, twenty-six. 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat, twenty-six. 

David Ratuer. Democrat, twenty-six. 



caenpjy vs. morgan. 121 



For presidential electors, State at large — Continued. 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, twenty-six. 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat, twenty-six. 

George M. Flick, Republican, forty-four. 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican, forty-three. 

M. P. Howser. Republican, forty-three. 

H. L. Hix, Republican, forty-two. 

tindsey L. Long, forty-three. 

W. L. McWilliams, Republican, forty-two. 

Ret Millard, Republican, forty-two. 

George E. Nickel, Republican, forty -two. 

Joseph G. Ralls, Republican, forty-two. 

W. A. Williams, Republican, forty-three. 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist, fourteen. 

C B. Boylan. Socialist, fourteen. 

A. R. Bradshaw. Socialist, fourteen. 

W. H. Davis, Socialist, fourteen. 

H. E. Dooley, Socialist, fourteen. 

Allen Fields. Socialist, fourteen. 

Lewis B. Irvin. Socialist, fourteen. 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, fourteen. 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist, fourteen. 

Thos. W. Woodrow, Socialist, thirteen. 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibitionist, two. 

J. E. Brewer. Prohibitionist, two. 

Chas. Brown, Prohibitionist, two. 

S. H. Brown, Prohibitionist, two. 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibitionist, two. 

G. M. Hadduck. Prohibitionist, two. 

Chas. O. Jennings. Prohibitionist, two. 

J. H. Medaris. Prohibitionist, two. 

G. E. Rouch. Prohibitionist, two. 

H. E. Strickler. Prohibitionist, three. 
For United States Senator: 

Robt. L. Owen. Democrat, thirty. 

J. T. Dickerson. Republican, forty-four. 

John G. Wills. Socialist, fourteen. 
For Congressman. State at large : 

Wm. H. Mni-ray, Democrat, twenty-eight. 

Joe B. Thompson. Democrat, twenty-seven. 

Claude Weaver. Democrat, twenty-seven. 

Alvin D. Allen. Republican, forty-three. 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican, forty-three. 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican, forty-five. 

Oscar Amering;er. Socialist, fourteen. 

J. T. Cumbie, Socialist, fifteen. 

J. Luther Langston, Socialist, fourteen. 
For justice, supreme court, first district: 

John B. Turner, Democrat, twenty-nine. 

Charles Alston Cook, Republican, forty-four. 
For .iudge, criminal court of appeals, southern district 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat, twenty-eight. 

George T. Ralls. Republican, forty-five. 

E. S. Hurt. Socialist, fifteen. 
For Representative in Congress, second district: • 

J. J. Carney, twenty-seven. 

D. L. Morgan, forty-seven. 
P. D. McKenzie. thirteen. 

For State senator, sixteenth district : 
M. B. Carley, twenty-nine. 

E. J. Warner, forty-three. 

S. H. Hendrickson, thirteen. 
For representative : 

W. R. Kelly, twenty-four. 
George Jamison, forty-seven. 
John T. Long, fifteen. 



122 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

State question No. 40, initiative petition No. 25 : 
Siiall it be adopted? 
Yes, twenty-one. 
No, fifty-one. 
State question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17 : 
Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? 
Yes, forty-six. 
No, sixteen. ■• 

We further certify that there were no spoiled ballots, the consecutive num- 
bers of which were numbers 1 to 97, and there were 170 unused ballots, the 
consecutive numbers of which were from and including numbers 96 to 266 to 

and including number . 

L. D. Adamson, 
Otis Work, 

J. H. RiGGS, 
R. A. TOLLE, 

Harvey Laughlin, 

Official Counters. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 
This oath may be administered by the clerk. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I, Theodore Graalman, notary public in and for Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, complete, and 
entire copy of the Exhibit 1 introduced in evidence by the contestant in the 
taking of depositions or evidence before me in the cause now pending before 
the House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States 
of America, wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is 
contestee. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, Okla. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Testimony of W. E. DYKES. 

Direct examination by Mr. Morgan : 

<3. State your name and voting precinct in which you live. — A. W. E. Dykes ; 
my voting precinct is Arapaho. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold at the last general election 
held in the said precinct on the 5th day of November, 1912? — A. Judge. 

Q. Were you present all that day until the votes and ballots were locked in 
the boxes? — ^A. Yes, sii\ 

Q. Was the election held in that precinct regular in all respects? — ^A. To the 
best of my judgment. 

Q. There were no irregularities that you know of? — A. No. 

W. E. Dykes. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 'Notary Puhlic. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Testimony of A. L. SLAYTON. 

Direct examination by Mr. Morgan : 

A. L. Slayton, of lawful age, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name, residence, and the voting precinct in which you live. — 
A. A. L. Slayton, Canton, precinct No. 23. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold in said township and voting 
precinct at the general election held November 5. 1912? — ^A. Inspector. 

Q. Who acted as counters at said election? — A. E. A. Mitchell, H. J. Enlow, 
J. E. Lyon, R. B. McGuire. 

Q. Who acted as clerk and judge. — A. F. A. Wallen as judge and T. W. 
Martin clerk. 

Q. Calling your attention to Contestee's Exhibit 6, I will ask you to state 
what that is. — ^A. Certificate of vote. 



CAENEY VS. MOKGAN. 123 

Q. Certificate of vote cast at said election for the candidates on tlie State 
ticket? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present all of the day of the election up to the time the ballot 
boxes were locked? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present when this certificate of vote was made out? — A. I was 
in the room. 

Q. Was that certificate of vote made out by some member of the election 
board from a tally sheet prepared by the counters? — A. It was got out by the 
counters. After they had signed it I signed it. 

Q. What was done with this certificate of vote after it was prepared and 
signed by the counters and yourself? — A. It was sealed in an envelope and 
placed in the ballot box. 

Q. Was the envelope sealed with wax in the form required by law?— A. Yes, 
sir; it was sealed with wax. 

Q. After this envelope was sealed what was done with it? — A. It was placed 
in the ballot box and locked. 

Q. What was then done with the ballot box?— A. I took them home until 
the next morning, then brought them to Watonga and turned them over to 
the county election board. 

Q. Please examine contestee's Exhibit No. 6 and state if this is in the same 
condition it was when placed in the ballot box in the sealed envelope. — A. I 
would say that it is. 

Q. Do you note any changes or alteration thereon? — A. No, sir. 
( Contestee now asks that the Exhibit 6 be introduced in evidence and that a 
true, correct, and complete copy thereof be attached to the deposition of this 
witness.) , . . 

Q. Was the election held in precint No. 23 of Canton Township m all re- 
spects regular?— A. To the best of my knowledge it was. 

Q. The election concerning which you have .iust testified took place in pre- 
cinct No. 23, Canton Township, which is in Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, 
did it?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q Examine Exhibit 6 and state what it shows the vote to have been cast 
for John J. Carney and Dick T. Morgan, respectively.— A. John J. Carney, 55 ; 

Dick T. Morgan, 104. 

A. L. Slayton. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, A. D. 1913. 
[SEAL.] Theodore Graalman, Notary PuliHc. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Contestee's Exhibit 6. 

Certificate of vote. 

We the undersigned official counters for the election held at precinct No. 23 
of Canton Township of Blaine County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 
A D. 1912, herebv certify that the correct number of votes cast at said precinct 
in said election for the various candidates and for and against State questions 
Nos. 40 and 45 voted on is herein set forth in figures. 

For corporation commissioners: 

J. E. Love, Democrat ^ 

P. J. Loewen, Republican i^* 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist ^^ 

For presidential electors State at large : 

Robert A. Baird, Democrat ^j 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat 9i 



H. H. Brenner, Democrat. 



50 



Joseph W. Foster, Democrat ^ 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat ^1 

Sam Massingale, Democrat ^i 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat 2^ 

50 

50 



David Ratner, Democrat. 
J. D. Scott, Democrat- 



J. C. Thompson, Democrat ^ 

Geo. M. Flick, Republican i^^ 



124 . CAKN^EY VS. MORGAN. 

For presidential electors, State at large — Continued. 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican 106 

M. P. Howser, Republican 106 

H. L. Hix, Republican 106 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican 106 

W. L. McWilliams, Republican 106 

Ret Millard, Republican 107 

Geo. E. Nickel, Republican 106 

Joseph G. Ralls, Republican 108 

W. A. Williams, Republican 106 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist 39 

C. B. Boylan, Socialist 39 

A. R. Bradshaw. Socialist 39 

W. H. Davis, Socialist 39 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist 39 

Allen Fields, Socialist 39 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist 39 

I. W. Johnson, Socialist 39 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist 39 

Thomas W. Woodrow, Socialist 39 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibition , 1 

J. E. Brewer, Prohibition 1 

Chas. Brown, Prohibition 1 

S. H. Brown, Prohibition 1 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibition 1 

G. M. Hadduck, Prohibition 1 

Chas. O. Jennings, Prohibition 1 

J. H. Modaris, Prohibition 1 

G. E. Rouch, Prohibition 1 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibition 1 

For United States Senator: 

Robt. L. Owen, Democrat 55 

J. T. Dickerson, Republican 102 

John G. Wills 39 

For Congressman, State at large : 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat 51 

Joe B. Thompson, Democrat 49 

Claude Weaver, Democrat 48 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican 105 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican 105 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican 106 

Oscar Ameringer. Socialist 39 

J. T. Cumble, Socialist 39 

J. Luther Langston, Socialist 39 

For justice supreme court, first district : 

John B. Turner, Democrat 53 

Chas. Alston Cook, Republican 104 

For judge criminal court appeals, southern district : 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat 53 

Geo. T. Ralls, Republican 100 

W. S. Hurt, Socialist 39 

For Representative in Congress, second district: 

Dick T. Morgan 104 

J. J. Carney 55 

H. D. McKenzie 37 

For State senator, sixteenth district : 

E. S. Warner 105 

M. B. Corley 51 

S. H. Hendrickson 40 

For representative: 

George Jamison 95 

W. R. Kelly 6S 

J. F. Long 40 

State question No. 40. initiative petition No. 25 : 
Shall it be adopted?— 

Yes 63 

No 77 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 125 

State question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17 : 
Sliall the proposed amendment be adopted? — 

Yes 65 

No 30 

We further certify that there were 3 spoiled ballots, the consecutive numbers 
of which were Nos. 43, 28, and 44, and that there were 60 unused, the con- 
secutive numbers of which were from and including Nos. — to and including — . 

E. A. Mitchell, 

H. J. INLOW, 

J. E. Lyons, 
R. B. McGtjibe, 

Official Counters. 
A. T. Slayton. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 

, Cleric. 

This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I, Theodore Graalman, notary public in and for Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, complete, 
and entire copy of the Exhibit 6 introduced in evidence by the contestee in the 
taking of depositions or evidence before me in the cause now pending before the 
House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of 
America, wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee. 
[SEAL.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary PuUic, Blaine County, State of Oldahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

F. A. WALLEN, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, testified as follows : 

Q. State your name, residence, and voting precinct in which you live. — ^A. 
F. A. Wallen, Canton Township, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, precinct 
No. 23. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold at the last general election 
held on November 5, 1912? — A. I was election judge. 

Q. Were you present during all the day of the election and all of the time 
the election board was in session on that day? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. There was an election held on that day, was there? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Asking you to examine Contestee's Exhibit 6, I will ask you to state 
what it is. — A. Certificate of vote for office on the State ticket. 

Q. Please note especially the signatures of the counters and the inspector 
at the bottom thereof, and state whether you saw those signatures signed 
thereto. — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Those signatures are the signatures of the counters and the inspector of 
that precinct, are they? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present when the Exhibit No. 6 was made out? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was the votes shown thereon taken by some of the election officials from 
the tally sheet made up by the counters? — A. Yes, sii. 

F. A. Wallen. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, A. D. 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, Notary Pudlic. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

J. C. DIMMETT, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, testifies as follows : 

Q. State your name, your residence, and the voting precinct in which you 
live. — A. J. C. Dimmett, Carlton Township, precinct No. 29. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold at the last general election 
held in Carlton Township, precinct No. 29, Blaine CouDty, State of Oklahoma? — 
A. Judge. 

Q. Were you present during the entire time the election board in that precinct 
were in session on that day? — A. I was. 



126 CAKISTEY VS. MOKGAlSr. 

Q. Was there au election held on that day at which votes were cast for Con- 
gressman in the second congressional district of the State of Oklahoma? — 
A. Yes. 

Q. Was the election board in that precinct on that day duly organized? — ^A. 
It was. 

Q. Were the officers who acted on that day duly qualified? — ^A. They were. 

Q. I will ask you to examine Contestee's Exhibit No. 8 and ask you to state 
what it is. — ^A. Certificate of votes cast. 

Q. At that election? — A. Yes. 

Q. Were you present when this^certificate of vote was made up? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From what were the totals shown thereon taken? — A. From the tally 
sheet. 

Q. Please examine the signatures attached at the bottom of this certificate 
and state if you know the signatures appearing thereon? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who acted as counters in said precinct at said election? — A. J. C. Schafer, 
Dave Sinner. A. E. Condoner, and George White. 

Q. Who acted as inspector in that precinct? — A. John McGee. 

Q. Who acted as clerk? — ^A. John B. Lemon. 

Q. Are you acquainted with the signatures of the men who acted as counters 
and as clerk at said election? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Please examine the signatures attached to Contestee's Exhibit No. 8 and 
state whether or not the signatures attached thereto are the signatures of the 
counters and the clerk, respectively, who acted at said election as such offi- 
cials. — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see those gentlemen sign their name to that certificate? — ^A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. After this certificate was made out, what was done with it? — A. Put in 
an envelope, sealed and put in the ballot box. 

Q. What was then done with the ballot box? — A. It was locked up and 
turned over to the inspector. 

Q. What was then done with the box, if you know? — A. The inspector took 
charge of them; they was in his possession until in the morning and then 
brought down to the county election board. 

Q. Please examine Contestee's Exhibit No. 8 and state whether or not it is in 
the same condition now as when signed by the counters and the clerk of said 
election board as changes, alterations, or mutilations. — A. I don't see no altera- 
tions nor changes. 

(Contestee now offers in evidence Contestee's Exhibit No. 8 and asks that a 
true, correct, and complete copy thereof, duly certified, be attached to the depo- 
sition of this witness. ) 

(To which we object as incompetent and irrelevant and not proven identified 
or authenticated.) 

Cross-examination by Mr. Emery: 

Q. The negroes and Indians who voted in your precinct, state whether or 
not the test as to whether or not they were able to read and write was applied 
to them, and if not, why not? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial and as 
improper cross-examination. 

A. Well, we had tested those Indians. But I know some of them could write. 
Well, Mr. McGee was the inspector two years ago, and they were eligible to vote, 
he said. They voted two years ago and they let them vote this time. 

Q. Do you know whether or not the test was applied either this last election, 
or two years ago, to the Indians? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination. 

A. I don't know. I was not in that township two years ago. 

Q. Can you state the number of Indians who voted who could not read or 
write? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and im- 
13|"oper cross-examination. 

A. Well, there were some I don't Ivuow whether they could read or write 
or not. 

Q. Now, did you see this letter of Mr*. Boardman, United States district 
attorney, in reference to enforcement of the grandfather clause at any time 
before the close of the election? 



CARISrEY VS. MORGAlSr. 127 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and iromaterial, and 
improper cross-examination. 

A. I can't say on what day I got that. 

Q. Did you get it before the close of the election, before the polls closed? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination, it not having been shovs^n that the contestee, nor 
anyone by or for him, wrote, or had written, or sent, or had sent the letter and 
circular referred to. 

A. Well, I can't say when I got that letter. 

Q. Did you know of that letter on the day of the election ? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason last above stated. 

A. I think it came the evening after the polls closed. I think I got it that 
day. I wouldn't be positive about that. 

Mr. Morgan. Comes now the contestee and moves to strike from the record 
all of the cross-examination of this witness for the reason that the same is 
incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross-examination. 

J. C. DiMMETT. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Gkaalman, 'Notary Putlic. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 8. 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigTied, official counters for the election held at precinct No. 29 
of Carlton Township of Blaine County on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 
A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at said precinct 
in said election for the various candidates and for and against State questions 
Nos. 40 and 45 voted on is herein set forth in written words. 
For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat, thirteen. 

P. J. Loewen, Republican, fifty-one. 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist, fifteen. 
For presidential electors. State at large : 

Robt. A. Baird, Democrat, thirteen. 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat, thirteen. 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat, thirteen. 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat, thirteen.. 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat, fourteen.. 

Sam Massingale, Democrat, fourteen. 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat, fourteen. 

David Ratner, Democrat, fourteen. 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, fourteen. 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat, fourteen. 

Geo. M. Flick, Republican, fifty. 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican, fifty-one. 

M. P. Howser, Republican, fifty. 

H. L. Hix, Republican, fifty. 

Lindsey L. Long; Republican, fifty. 

W. L. McWilliams, Republican, fifty. 

Ret Millard, Republican, fifty. 

Geo. E. Nickel, Republican, fifty. 

Joseph G. Ralls, Republican, fifty. 

W. A. Williams, Republican, fifty. 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist, thirteen. 

C. B. Boylan, Socialist, thirteen. 

A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist, thirteen. 

W. H. Davis, Socialist, thirteen. 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist, thirteen. 

Allen Fields, Socialist, thirteen. 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist, thirteen. 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, thirteen. 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist, thirteen., 

Thos. AV. Woodrow, Socialist, thirteen. 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibition. 



128 CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

For presidential electors, State at large — Continued. 

J. E. Brewer, Probibition. 

Clias. Brown, Prohibition. 

S. H. Brown, Prohibition. 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibition. 

G. M. Haddnck, Prohibition. 

Chas. O. Jennings. Prohibition. 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibition. 

G. B. Rouch, Prohibition. 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibition. 
For United States Senator : 

Robt. L. Owen, Democrat, thirteen. 

J. T. Dickerson. Republican, forty-eight. . 

John G. Wills, thirteen. 
For Congressman, State at large : 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat, fifteen. 

Joe B. Thompson, Democrat, thirteen. 

Claude Weaver, Democrat, thirteen. 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican, forty-nine. 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican, forty-nine. 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican, fifty. 

Oscar Ameringer, Socialist, fourteen. 

J. T. Gumble, Socialist, fourteen. 

J. Luther Langston, Socialist, fourteen. 
For justice supreme court, first district : 

John B. Turner, Democrat, thirteen. 

Chas. Alston Cook, Republican, fifty-three. 
For judge criminal court appeals, southern district : 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat, fourteen. 

Geo. T. Ralls, Republican, forty-nine. 

E. S. Hurt, Socialist, fourteen. 
For Representative in Congress, second district : 

Dick T. Morgan, fifty-one. 

J. J. Carney, thirteen. 

H. D. McKenzie, fourteen. 
For State senator, sixteenth district: 

E. S. Warner, fifty-two. 

M. B. Corley, fourteen. 

S. H. Hendrickson, twelve. 
For representative: 

George Jamison, fifty-two. 

W. P. Kelly, thirteen. 

J. P. Long, twelve. 
State question No. 40. Initiative petition No. 25 : 

Shall it be adopted? 
Yes, fifty-two. 
No, fourteen. 
State question No. 45, Referendum petition No. 17 : 

Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? 
Yes, forty-four. 
No, sixteen. 
We further certify that there were no spoiled ballots, the consecutive num- 
bers of which were Nos. , and that there were 116 unused, the consecutive 

numbers of which were from and including Nos. 42 to and including 266. 

j. c. schafer, 
Dave Sinner, 
a. e. condonier, 
George White, 

Official Counters. 
John B. Lemon. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 



This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 
State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I, Theodore Graalman, notary public, in and for Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, complete, 



CARNEY VS. MOKGAN. 129 

and entire copy of the Exhibit 8 introduced in evidence by the contestee in 
the tailing of depositions or evidence before rue in the cause now pending before 
the House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States 
of America, wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is con- 
testee. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oldahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

JOHN McGEE, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, testifies as follows : 

Q. Stute your name, the township in which you live, and the voting precinct. — 
A. John McGee, Carlton Township, precinct No. 29. 

Q. What official position, if any, did you hold at the general election held in 
said precinct on November 5, 1912? — A. Inspector. 

Q. Calling your attention to Contestee's Exhibit No. 8, same being certificate 
of vote cast in said precinct at said election, I will ask you what was done 
with the box in which it was deposited on the evening of the election? — ^A. I 
took the box and took it to where I slept, and there held it until morning, 
brought it to Watonga, put it in the hands of the county election board. 

Q. Was there any opportunity during the time in which it was in your posses- 
sion for any change or alteration of this certificate? — A. For anyone to tamper 
with it? No, sir. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Emery : 

Q. Mr. McGee, ' what can you say in reference to negroes voting in your 
precinct, and about the test regarding their ability to read and write being 
applied to themV 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
improper cross-examination. 

A. I never did test them — this time, 

Q. Now, just state, Mr. McGee. why it was you did not test them this time. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination. 

A. Simply because I tested them two years ago, and I thought that was suffi- 
cient. 

Q. Did you ever see that letter of Mr. Boardman, United States district 
attorney, and also that article "Talk it over with your wife," before the close 
of the polls on the day of the election? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination, and for the reason that it has not been shown that the 
contestee herein sent or had sent, or wrote or had written, said letter and 
circular, or either of them. 

A. I ain't got no wife. 

Q. Mr. McGee, I have reference to that article which was sent out with 
the letter of Boardman, and the article was entitled, " Talk it over with your * 
wife." 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the same reason last above stated. 

A. Well, I talked it over with myself and the rest of the board. 

Q. Well, now, what effect did this letter of Boardman and this article have 
on yourself, and on the election board, in reference to the enforcement of the 
grandfather clause? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
improper cross-examination. 

A. I don't know as it had any effect on me. 

Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the entire cross-examina- 
tion of the witness for the reason the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and 
immaterial, and improper cross-examination, and an attempt on the part of ' 
the contestant to prove statements and allegations contained in the contestant's 
notice of contest. 

John McGee. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Graalman, Notary PuMic. 

. My commission expires January 17, 1915. 
4252—13 9 



130 CARISrEY vs. MOKGAN. 

JOHN B. LEMON, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Q. State your name, residence, and voting precinct in which you live. — 
A. John B. Lemon, Carlton Township, precinct No. 29, Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma. 

Q. What official position, if any. did you occupy at the general election held 
in said precinct on November 5, 1912? — A. Clerk. 

Q. I will ask you to examine the signature, of John B. Lemon, attached to 
€onttestee's Exhibit No. 8, and ask you if that is your signature? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Examine Contestee's Exhibit No. S and state whether or not it is in the 
same condition now as it was when you signed it.- — A. It is. 

John B. Lemon. 

.'Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 1913. 
![SEAL.] - Theodore Graalman, Notary Piihlic. 

My commission expires January 17, 1916. 

E. W. CARTER, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, testifies: 

Q. State your name, the township in which you live, and the voting pre- 
cinct. — A. F. W. Carter, East Lincoln Township, precinct 30. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold in said precinct at the general 
election held November 5. 1912. therein? — A. Judge. 

Q. Were you present on that d^ay at the polling place in said precinct during 
the entire time the election board thereof was in session? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. State who acted as counters in said precinct at said election. — A. Martin 
Geiger, Enos Williams. E. Keely, John Funk. 

Q. Who acted as inspector? — A. Henry Spreitzer. 

Q. Who acted as clerk? — ^A. Henry Husemeyer. 

Q. Were votes cast at said election for Congressman of the second district, 
State of Oklahoma? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Was the election board duly organized at the opening of the polls on that 
day? — ^A. To the best of my knowledge it was. 

Q. The polls were open during the time required by law, were they?— 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you to examine Contestee's Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state 
what it is. — A. Certificate of vote. 

Q. Cast in said precinct? — A. No. 30. 

Q. What township? — ^A. Lincoln Township, Blaine County, State of Okla- 
homa. 

Q. Were you present at the time this certificate was prepared? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From what were the totals of the vote cast shown thereon taken? — ^A. 
J'i'om the tally sheets. 

Q. Prepared by the counters? — A. l^es, sir. 

tQ. Examine the signatures at the bottom of this sheet and state whether or 
not you saw the gentlemen whose names appear there sign said certificate. — 
A. I did. . Yes ; I saw them sign. 

Q. What was done with this certificate after it was signed? — A. Put in an 
(envelope and sealed — the returns and. ballots. 

Q. What was then done with that envelope? — A. It was sealed with wax and 
istamped with the election seal, then wrote across the flap by two of the mem- 
"bers of the board ; their names. 

Q. What was then done with the envelope? — A. This one was put in the 
fballot box, locked by the inspector and myself. 

Q. What was then done Avith the box? — A. Turned over to the inspector for 
•delivery. 

■Q. Asking you to examine Contestee's Exhibit No. 7, I will ask you to state 
whether or not it is in the same condition now as it was when you saw it 
signed on the night of November 5, 1912, as regards changes, alterations, or 
erasures? — A. To the best of my recollection, it is in the same condition. 

Q. Do you see any erasures or changes thereon? — A. No, sir. 

F. W. Carter. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of Febi'uary. 1913. 
[seal.] Theodoee Graalman. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915, 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAlSr. 131 

Contestee's Exhibit No. 7. 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned official counters for the election held at precinct No. 
30 of Lincoln Township, of Blaine County, on Tuesday the 5th day of Novem- 
ber, A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at said 
precinct in said election for the various candidates and for and against State 
questions Nos. 40 and 45 voted on is herein set forth in vpritten vpords. 

For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat, ten (10). 

P. J. Loewen, Republican, twenty-eight (28). 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist, thirty-six (36). 
For presidential electors. State at large : 

Robert A. Baird, Democrat, nine (9). 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat, nine (9). 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat, nine (9). 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat, nine (9). 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat, nine (9). 

Sam Massingale, Democrat, ten (10). 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat, nine (9). 

David Ratner, Democrat, nine (9). 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, nine (9). 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat, nine (9). 

Geo. M. Flick, Republican, thirty-two (32). 

Marshall W. Hinch. Republican, thirty (30). 

M. P. Howser, Republican, thirtv-one (31). 

H. L. Hix, Republican, thirty (30). 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican, thirty (30). 

W. L. McWilliams. Republican, thirty (30). 

Ret Millard, Republican, thirty (30). 

George E. Nickel. Republican, thirty-one (31). 

Joseph G. Ralls, Republican, thirty (30). 

W. A. Williams, Republican, thirty (30). 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist, thirtv-seven (37). 

C. B. Boylan. Socialist, thirty-eight (38). 

A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist, thirty-eight (38). 

W. H. Davis, Socialist, thirty-eight (38). 

R. B. Dooley, Socialist, thirty-eight (38). 

Allen Fields. Socialist, thirty-seven (37). 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist, thirty-eight (38). 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, thirty-eight (38). 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist, thirt.v-seven (37). 

Thomas W. Woodrow, Socialist, thirty-seven (37). 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibitionist, three (3). 

J. B. Brewer, Prohibitionist, three (3). 

Chas. Brown, Prohibitionist, three (3). 

S. H. Brown, Prohibitionist three (3). 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibitionist, three (3). 

G. M. Hadduck, Prohibitionist, three (3). 

Chas. O. Jennings, Prohibitionist, three (3). 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibitionist, three (3). 

G. E. Rouch, Prohibitionist, three (3). 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibitionist, three (3). 
For United States Senator : 

Robt. L. Owen, Democrat, eleven (11). 

J. T. Dickerson, Republican, twenty-six (26). 

John G. Wills. Socialist, thirty-seven (37). 
For Congressman, State at large: 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat, twelve (12). 

Joe B. Thompson, Democrat, twelve (12). 

Claude Weaver, Democrat, twelve (12). 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican, twenty-eight (28). 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican, twenty-seven (27). 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican, tweutj'-nine (29). 



132 CABNEY VS. MOKGAN. 

For Congressman, State at large — Continued. 

Oscar Ameringer, Socialist, thirty-seven (37). 

J. T. Cumbie, Socialist, thirty-seven (37). 

J. Luther Langston, Socialist, thirty-seven (37). 
For Justice Supreme Court, First District : 

John B. Turner, Democrat, eleven (11). 

Charles Alston Cook, Republican, twenty-eight (28). 
For Judge Crimuial Court of Appeals, Southern District: 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat, eleven (11). 

George T. Ralls, Republican, twenty-eight (28). 

E. S. Hurt, Socialist, thirty-five (35). 
For Representative in Congress, Second District : 

J. J. Carney, Democrat, ten (10). • 

Dick T. Morgan, Republican, thirty (30). 

T. D. McKinzie, Socialist, thirty-six (36). 
For State Senator, Sixteenth District: 

M. B. Corley, Democrat, eleven (11). 

E. J. Warner, Republican, twenty-seven (27). 

S. H. Hendrickson, Socialist, thirty-six (36). 
For Representative: 

W. R. Kelley, Democrat, twelve (12). 

George Jamison, Republican, twenty-five (25). 

J. F. Long, Socialist, thirty -nine (39). 
State Question No. 40. Initiative Petition No. 25 : 

Shall it be adopted?— 

Yes, thirtj'-eight (38). 
No, nineteen (19). 
State Question No. 45, Referendum Petition No. 17 : 

Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? — 
Yes, thirty-two (32). 
No, nineteen (19). 

We further certify that there was 1 spoiled ballot, the number of which was 
No. 12, and there were 174 unused ballots, 93 the consecutive numbers of which 
were from and including No. 93 to and including No. 266. 

Enos Williams, 
Martin Gigeb, 
E. Keeley, 
John C. Funk, 

Official Counters. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 

Henry Spbeitzeb. 
This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 
State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss. 

I, Theodore Graalman, notary public in and for Blaine County, State of Okla- 
homa, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, complete, and en- 
tire copy of the Exhibit 7 introduced in evidence by the contestee in the taking 
of depositions or evidence before me in the cause now pending before the House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee. 
[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, 

State of Oklahoma. 
My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

HENRY SPREITZER, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Q. State your name, the township and voting precinct in which you live. — 
A. Henry Spreitzer ; Lincoln Township, precinct No. 30. 

Q. What, if any, oflicial position did you hold in said precinct at the general 
election held November 5, 1912, therein? — A. Inspector. 

Q. Were you pi'esent on that day at the polling place in said precinct during 
the entire time the election board thereof was in session? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Asking you to examine contestee's Exhibit No. 7, which the preceding 
witness has just testified was placed in one of the boxes by the .election board 
and placed in your charge, I will ask you to state what was done by you with 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. * 133 

that box after it was placed in your possession. — ^A. I kept it in the same room 
that night. The next morning I brought it to Watonga and placed it in the 
hands of the county election board. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Emeby : 

Q. Did any of the negroes vote in your precinct? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
improper cross-examination. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Do you know the number? 

Mr. Morgan. Same objection as last above stated. 

A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you give them the test as to whether or not they were able to read 
and write? 

Mr. Morgan. Same objection as last above stated. 

A. Those that I was in doubt of I did. 

Q. Did any negro vote who was not able to read and write? 

Mr. Morgan. Same objection as last above stated. 

A. Not that I know of. 

Q. Did you know or hear of this letter of Boardman's before the close of the 
polls on the day of the election? 

Mr. Morgan. Same objection as last above stated. 

A. I believe I did. 

Q. What effect, if any, did this letter have on yourself and the election board 
in reference to the enforcement of the grandfather clause? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reasons last above stated and for the reason 
that it is not shown that the contestee herein, or anyone by or for him, com- 
posed, wrote, sent, or procured to be sent either the letter or circular referred to. 

A. Well, we talked it over. We were uneasy, but we done what we thought 
was right. 

(Comes now the contestee and moves to strike from the evidence the entire 
cross-examination of the witness for the reason that the same is incompetent, 
irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross-examination, and the same being 
an attempt on the part of the contestant to prove allegations and statements 
set out in contestant's notice of contest.) 

Henri'- Spreitzeb. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Graalman, Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

GEORGE H. BUTLER, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Q. State your name, your township in which you live, and your voting pre- 
cinct. — A. George H. Butler, Cedar Valley Township, precinct 6, Blaine County, 
State of Oklahoma. 

Q. Was there an election held in that precinct on the 5th day of November, 
1912, at which the votes were cast for Congressman of the second district of 
the State of Oklahoma?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold in said precinct at said election 
on said day? — ^A. Inspector. 

Q. Were you present at the polling place in said precinct during the entire 
time the election board was in session on said day? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was the board duly organized according to law in said precinct on said 
day? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who acted as counters in said precinct at said election? — A. A. C. Sherod, 
S. L. Clark, H. H. Goerke, and Claude Barnes. 

Q. Who acted as clerk and judge at said election?— A. E. T. Davis as clerk 
and Tom Barnes as judge. Mr. Davis was judge, but acted as clerk by consent 
of the board. 

Q. Calling your attention to Contestee' s Exhibit 3, I will ask you to state 
what that is? — A. It is the certificate of the vote on the State ticket. 

Q, Were you present when that certificate was made out? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you acquainted with the signatures of the counters at the bottom 
thereof? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are those the signatures of the parties whose names appear there? — ^A. 
Yes, sir. 



134 CAKNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

Q. That is your signature at the bottom there, is it not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. This certificate was made out from the tally sheets prepared by \he 
counters, was it? — A. The totals were copied from the ofiicial certificate of vote. 

Q. When you say ofiicial certificate of vote, you mean the instrument or paper 
which you have just taken from your pocket? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What is this instrument that you have just taken from your pocket? — A. 
Certificate of vote. 

Q. It being kept by you as one of the official copies of the certificate of vote?^ 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And the totals of the votes cast for the State officers was copied upon it 
from the tally sheets, was it not? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. I will now ask you to examine the instrument which you have taken from 
your pocket and compare it with Contestee's Exhibit .3 and state whether or 
not the totals of the votes cast for the various candidates on the State ticket 
are the same in the Exhibit 3 as they are upon the certificate that you have 
taken from your pocket. — A. They are the same. 

Q. Contestee's Exhibit 3 is one of the ofiicial returns, is it not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You were present when it was being made out, were you? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. After it was made out what was done with, it? — A. It was put in the 
envelope and placed in one of the boxes. 

Q. Was the envelope in which it was placed sealed, and the names of two 
members of the election board written across the fiap? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was the box then locked? — A. The box was locked by the clerk and judge. 

Q. What was then done with the box? — A. I took charge of the box, and 
brought it on here to Watonga the next morning. 

Q. To whom? — ^A. To the county election board. 

Q. I will ask you if the instrument marked "Contestee's Exhibit 3" is in 
all respects in the same condition now as it was when signed by you and placed 
in the ballot box? — A. As far as I can see, it is. 

Q. Do you notice any changes, alterations, or erasures thereon? — A. No, sir. 

Q. While this box was in your possession, was any opportunity given to any- 
one to change or alter the certificate marked " Contestee's Exhibit 3"? — A. No, 
sir. 

Q. Please examine Contestee's Exhibit 3 and state what is shown thereby as 
to the votes east in said precinct for John ,1. Carney and Dick T. Morgan, re- 
spectively ?— A. J. J. Carney. 30; Dick T. Morgan, 39. 

Geo. H. Butxeb. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 1913. 
[SPJAL.] Theodoee Gbaalman, Notary PuMic. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Contestee's Exhibit 3. 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned ofiicial counters for the election held at precinct No. 6, 
of Cedar Valley Township, of Blaine County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of Novem- 
ber, A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of vo'es cast at said 
precinct in said election for the various candidates nnd for and against State 
questions Nos. 40 and 45, voted on, is herein set forth in written words : 

For corporation commissioner : 

J. E. Love, Democrat — 32 

P. J. Loewen. Republican 33 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist 24 

For presidential electors. State at large: 

Robert A. Baird. Democrat 31 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat 30 

H. H. Brenner. Democrat '. 29 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat 30 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat 31 

Sam Massingale, Democi'at 31 

S. H. Mayes. Democrat 30 

David Ratner. Democrat 30 

J. D. Scott, Democrat 31 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat 2& 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 135 

For presidential electors. State at large — Continued. 

George M. Flick, Eepublican 35 

Marshall W. Hincli, Republican 36 

M. P. Howser, Republican 36 

H. L. Hix, Republican 36 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican 36 

W. L. McWilliams, Republican 35 

Ret Millard. Republican 37 

George E. Nickel, Republican 36 

Joseph G. Ralls, Republican 37 

W. A. Williams. Republican 38 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist 26 

C. B. Boylan, Socialist 26 

A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist 26 

W. H. Davis, Socialist 26 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist 26 

Allen Fields, Socialist 26 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist 26 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist 26 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist 26 

Thomas W. Woodrow, Socialist 26 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibitionist ! 1 

J. E. Brewer, Prohibitionist 1 

Charles Brown, Prohibitionist 1 

S. H. Brown. Prohibitionist 1 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibitionist ; :_ 1 

G. M. Hadduck, Prohibitionist 1 

Charles O. Jennings, Prohibitionist 1 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibitionist , '. 1 

G. E. Rouch, Prohibitionist 1 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibitionist 1 

For United States Senator : 

Robert L. Qwen, Democi'at 34 

J. T. Dickersou. Republican 34 

John G. Wills, Socialist 24 

For Congressman, State at large: 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat 35 

Joe B. Thompson, Democrat 33 

Claude Weaver, Democrat 3g 

Alviu D. Allen, Republican 34 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican 33 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican 35 

Oscar Ameringer, Socialist 24 

J. T. Cumbie, Socialist 25 

J. Luther Langston. Socialist 24 

For justice supreme court, first district : 

John B. Turner, Democrat : 31 

Charles Alston Cook, Republican 3S 

For judge criminal court appeals, southern district : 

Henry M. Purman, Democrat , 29) 

George T. Ralls, Republican ^ 35 

E. S. Hurt, Socialist 1 2S 

For Representative in Congress — District : 

Dick T. Morgan 39- 

J. J. Carney 30 

P. D. McKinsie 21 

For State senator — district : 

E. J. Warner 36. 

M. B. Carley 2S 

S. H. Hendrickson 25 

For representative : 

W. R. Kelly 22 

George Jameson 39. 

John T. Long ,__ 32 

State question No. 40, Initiative Petition No. 25 : 
Shall it be adopted — 

Yes 1 36 

No 31 



136 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

State question No. 45, Referendum Petition No. 17: 
Shall the proposed amendment be adopted — 

Yes 15 

No - 50 

We further certify that there was one spoiled ballot, the number of which was 
No. 51, and there were 166 unused ballots, the consecutive numbers of which 
were from and including No. 100 to and including No. 266. 

h. h. goerke, 
Claud G. Baenes, 
S. L. Clark, 
A. C. Sherod, 

Official Counters. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 

Geo. H. Btjtleb, 

This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss.: 

I. Theodore Graalman, notary public, in and for Blaine County, State of 
Olflahoma, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, complete, and 
entire copy of the Exhibit 3 introduced in evidence by the contestee in the 
taking of depositions or evidence before me in the case now pending before 
the House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States 
of America, wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is 
contestee. 

[SEAL.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

J. A. DUNN, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Mr. Emery. Just state, in reference to the enforcement of the grandfather 
clause in your pi-ecinct, and what effect, if any, Mr. Boardman's letter had upon 
your election board in reference thereto? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. It kept them from putting the test as strong as they would. I didn't put 
any of them to test at all writing. Tested them in reading. I didn't let none 
vote who couldn't read. They was one went in and voted that I couldn't tell 
whether he could read or not. I stepped around the corner to " wet," and he 
got his ballot while I was gone. 

Direct examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. State your name, the township in which you live, and your voting pre- 
cinct. — A. J. A. Dunn. Logan Township, precinct No. 12. 

Q. Was there an election held in that voting precinct on the 5th day of 
November, 1912? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. At that election were there votes cast for the candidates for Congressmen 
from the second district of the State of Oklahoma? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you present during the entire time that the board was in session on 
that day?— A. All of the time except the time above stated. 

Q. Was the election board in that precinct on that day duly organized? — A. 
Yes. sir. 

Q. Who acted as counters at that election? — A. J. F. Irving, R. M. Scott. 
Evan C. Coyle, and Andy T. Anderson. 

Q. Who acted as clerk and judge of the election board of that precinct on 
that day? — A. C. E. Albion, clerk; Fred Strong, judge. 

Q. Calling your attention to Contestee's Exhibit 11, I will ask you what that 
is? — A. Certificate of vote on State ballot. 

Q. Were you present when this certificate of vote was prepared? — A. Yes, sir. 
' Q. From what were the totals of the vote taken, as shown by this certifi- 
cate? — A. From the tally sheets prepared by the counters. 

Q. You were present when this sheet was being made up, were you? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see the gentlemen sign this — the counters?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And "those signatures at the bottom are the signatures of the counters 
and the clerk who acted as such at said election, are they? — A. Yes, sir. 



CAEN"EY VS. MOEGAN. 137 

Q. After this certificate was prepared and signed, what was done with it? — 
A. Put in the ballot box. 

Q. Was it first placed in an envelope and sealed and the names of two mem- 
bers of the election board written across the flap thereof? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was the ballot box then locked? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. What was then done with it? — A. Brought to Watonga. 

Q. When did you bring it to Watonga? — A. It was somewheres about 11 
o'clock that night. 

Q. After the box was locked and up to the time that you turned it over to 
the election board of Blaine County, if you did so, was there any opportunity 
given to change, alter, or mutilate this certificate? — A. No, sir. 

Q. You delivered the box to the county election board, did you?— A. No, not 
that night; they were closed and I delivered it to them the next morning. 

Q. Was this box in your possession all that night? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was any opportunity given to anyone to change or alter this certificate 
during the time that it was in your possession? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Please examine the certificate as best you can and state whether or not 
it is in the same condition now as it was when it was placed in the envelope 
by the precinct election board. — ^A. To the best of my knowledge it is. 

Q. You don't see any changes or alterations thereon? — A. No, sir. 

(Contestee now offers in evidence Contestee's Exhibit 11 and asks that a 
true, cori-ect, and complete copy thereof be attached to the deposition of this 
witness.) 

Contestee now moves to strike from the evidence of this witness the ques- 
tions propounded to the witness by Mr. Emery and the answers tliereto for the 
reason that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.) 

J. A. Dunn. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 'Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Contestee's Exhibit 11. 
Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned ofiicial counters for the election held at precinct No. 12, 
of Logan Township, of Blaine County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 
A. D. 1912. hereby certify tliat the correct number of votes cast at said precinct 
in said election for the various candidates and for and against State Questions 
Nos. 40 and 45 voted on is herein set forth in written words. 

For corporation commissioner: 

J. E. Love. Democrat, forty-five. 

P. J. Loewen. Republican, eighty-three. 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist, thirty. 
For presidential electors State-at-large: 

Robert A. Baird, Democrat, forty-five. 

J. Wt Bolen, Democrat, forty-five. 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat, forty-six. 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat, forty-six. 

W. W. Hastings. Democrat, forty-six. 

Sam Massingale, Democrat, forty-six. 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat, forty-six. 

David Eatner, Democrat, forty-eight. 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, forty-eight. 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat, forty-six. 

Geo. M. Flick, Republican, eighty-eight. 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican, eighty-eight. 

M. P. Howser, Republican, eighty-eiglit. 

H. L. Hix, Republican, eighty-seven. 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican, eighty-eight. 

W. L. McWilliams. Republican, eighty-eight. 

Ret Millard, Republican, eighty-eight. 

George E. Nickel, Republican, eighty-seven. 

Joseph G. Ralls, Republican, eighty-seven. 

W. A. Williams, Republican, eighty-seven. 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist, thirty. 

C. B. Boylan, Socialist, twenty-nine. 



138 CARNEY VS. MORGAI^. 

For presidential electors, State-at-large — Continued. 

A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist, twenty-nine. 

W. H. Davis, Socialist, twenty-nine. 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist, twenty-nine. 

Allen Fields, Socialist, twenty-nine. 

Lewis B. Irviu, Socialist, twenty-niui-. 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, twenty-nine. 

A. W. Renshaw. Socialist, twenty-nine. 

Thomas W. Woodrow, Socialist, twenty-nine. 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibition, six. 

J. E. Brewer, Prohibition, six. 

Chas. Brown, Prohibition, six. 

S. H. Brown, Prohibition, six. 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibition, six. 

G. M. Pladdnck, Prohibition, six. 

Chas. O. Jennings, Prohibition, six. 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibition, six. 

G. E. Ronch, Prohibition, six. 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibition, six. 
For United States Senator: 

Robert L. Owen, Democrat, forty-eight. 

J. T. Dickerson, Republican, eighty-two. 

John G. Wills, Socialist, twenty-nine. 
For Congressman, State at large: 

William H. Murray, Democrat, forty-seven. 

Joe B. Thompson, Democrat, forty-six. 

Claude Weaver, Democrat, forty-six. 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican, eighty-two. 

James L. Brown, Republican, eighty-one. 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican, eighty. 

Oscar Ameringer, Socialist, thirty. 

J. T. Cumbie, Socialist, thirty-one. 

J. Luther Langston, Socio list, thirty-one. 
For justice supreme court, first district : 

John B. Turner, Democrat, forty-seven. 

Charles Alston Cook, Republican, eight-one. 
For judge criminal court of appeals, southern district: 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat, forty-five. 

George T. Ralls, Republican, eighty-two. 

E. S. Hurt, Socialist, twenty-nine. 
For Representative in Congress, district: 

J. J. Carney, Democrat, fifty- two. 

Dick T. Morgan, eighty. 

T. D. McKinzie, twenty-nine. 
For State senator, district: 

M. B. Corley, forty-six. 

E. J. Warner, eighty-two. 

S. H. Hendrickson, thirty. 
For Representative: 

W. R. Kelley, fifty. 

George Jamison, seventy-five. 

J. F. Long, thirty-six. 
State question No. 40, initiative petition No. 25 : 

Shall it be adopted?— 
Yes, thirty-two. 
No, ninety-one. 
State question No. 45. referendum petition No. 17 : 

Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? — 
Yes, thirty-two (32). 
No, nineteen (19). 
We further certify that there was 1 spoiled ballot, the number of which was 
No. 12, and there were 174 unused ballots, the consecutive numbers of which 
were from and including No. 92 to and including No. 266. 

Bnos Williams, 
Martin Gigeb, 
E. Keeley, 
John O. Funk, 

Official Counters. 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. * 1B9 

Subscribed and sworn to before me tbis the 5th day of November. A. D. 
1912. 

Henry Spreitzer. 

This oath may be administered by the judge, clerii, or inspector. 
State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I, Theodore Graalman, notary public in and for Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, complete, and 
entire copy of the Exhibit 11 introduced in evidence by the contestee in the tak- 
ing of depositions or evidence before me in the cause now pending before the 
House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of 
America wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee. 

[SEAL.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

W. E. THOMPSON, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Q. State your name, the township in which you live, and the voting precinct 
in which you live. — A. W. E. Thompson, Lincoln Township, precinct No. 10. 

Q. Was there a general election held in that precinct on the 5th day of No- 
vember, 1912? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you occupy or hold in said precinct on 
said day in this said election? — A. Judge. 

Q. Were you present on that day at the polling place in said precinct during 
all the time that voting was going on and during the time of the counting of 
the ballots cast therein and the making out of the returns? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Was the election board of said precinct duly organized the morning of the 
election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who acted as cou.nters in said precinct at said election? — A. Archie Baker, 
Clive Richmond, Roy Snyder, and Clyde Hantz. 

Q. Who acted as inspector and clerk in said election and in said precinct? — 
A. A. L. Ennen as inspector. J. S. Cooper as clerk. 

Q. Did these counters count the ballots cast on that day for candidates for 
the second district of the State of Oklahoma? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I Will ask you to examine contestee's Exhibit No. 9 and ask you to state 
what it is. — A. It is a certificate of vote of Lincoln Township, precinct No. 10, 
Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. I \^^ll ask you to examine the signatures at the bottom of contestee's 
exhibit and state whether or not you saw the counters sign their names 
thereto. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is that your signature at the bottom of the sheet? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Calling your attention to the statement of the votes cast as shown on said 
exhibit, I will ask you from what these totals were taken? — A. Taken from the 
tally sheets. 

Q. Prepared by the counters? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. After this certificate was signed, what was done with it? — A. As near as 
I can remember, it was placed in the envelope marked " Returns.'* It was 
sealed and the .judge's and clerk's names written across the flap of the envelope 
and placed in the ballot box and locked. 

Q. What was then done with the box in which this envelope was placed? — 
A. The inspector took charge of it. 

Q. Asking you to examine Contestee's Exhibit No. 9, I wlH ask you if it is 
in the same condition now as it was when it was placed in the envelope? — 
A. I dont see any changes. I think it looks the same. 

Q. Do you see any erasures or alterations thereon? — A. No, sir. 

(Contestee now asks that a true, complete, and correct copy of said Exhibit 9 
be attached to the deposition of this witness and that the same be made a part 

hereof. ) 

W. E. Thompson. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Graalman, Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 



140 CAKFEY VS. MOEGAN. 

Contestee's Exhibit 9. 
Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned official counters for the election held at precinct No. 10 
of Lincoln Township of Blaine County, on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 
A. D. 1012, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at said precinct 
in said election for the various candidates and for and against said State Ques- 
tions Nos. 40 and 45 voted on, is herein set forth in vi^ritten words. 

For corporation commissioner: 

J. E. Love, Democrat 48 

P. J. Loewen, Republican 38 

C. E. Hedgpeth, Socialist 49 

For Presidential electors, State at large: 

Robert A. Baird, Democrat 47 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat 47 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat 47 

Joseph W. Foster, Democrat 47 

W. W Hastings, Democrat 47 

Sam Massingale, Democrat 47 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat 47 

David Ratner, Democrat 48 

J. D. Scott, Democrat 47 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat 47 

George M. Flick 40 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican 40 

M. P. Ilowser, Republican 39 

H. L. Hix, Republican 39 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican 39 

W. L. McWilliams, Republican 39 

Ret Millard, Republican 39 

George E. Nickel. Republican 39 

Joseph G. Ralls, Republican 39 

W. A. Williams, Republican 39 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist 48 

C. B. Boylan, Socialist 47 

A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist 47 

W. H. Davis, Socialist 47 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist 48 

Allen Fields, Socialist 47 

Lewis B. Irvin, Socialist 47 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist 47 

A. W. Renshaw, Socialist 47 

Thos. W. Woodrow, Socialist 48 

M. Simpson Allen, Prohibition , 

J. E. Brewer, Prohibtion 

Ohas. Brown, Prohibition 

S. H. Brown, Prohibition 

Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibition 

G. M. Hadduck, Prohibition 

Chas. O. Jennings, Prohibition 

J. H. Medaris, Prohibition 

G. E. Rouch, Prohibition 

H. E. Strickler, Prohibition 

For United States Senator: 

Robt. L. Owen, Democrat 49 

J. T. Dickerson, Republican 37 

John G. Wills, Socialist -, 48 

For Congressman, State at large : 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat 47 

Joe B. Thompson, Democrat - 48 

Claude Weaver, Democrat 48 

Alvin D. Allen, Republican 39 

Jas. L. Brown, Republican 37 

Emory D. Brownlee, Republican 42 

Oscar Ameringer, Socialist 48 

J. T. Cumbie, Socialist 49 

J. Luther Langston, Socialist 49 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 141 

For justice, supreme court, first district: 

Jolin B. Turner, Democrat 47 

Charles Alston Cook. Republican 37 

For judge, criminal court appeals, southern district : 

Henry M. Furman, Democrat 47 

George T. Ralls. Republican 37 

E. S. Hurt, Socialist 50 

For Representative in Congress, second district: 

J. J. Carney. Democrat 45 

Dick T. Morgan, Republican 39 

P. D. McKinzie, Socialist 49 

For State senator, sixteenth district: 

M. B. Carley, Democrat 43 

E. J. Warner, Republican 43 

S. H. Hendrickson, Socialist , 49 

For representative : 

W. R. Kelley, Democrat :. 26 

Geo. Jamison, Republican 39 

John T. Long, Socialist 71 

State question No. 40, initiative petition No. 25 : 
Shall it be adopted? 

Yes 22 

No , 75 

State question No. 45, referendum petition No. 17 : 
Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? 

Yes - 52 

No i 39 

We further certify that there vpere no spoiled ballots, and there were 127 
unused ballots, the consecutive numbers of which were from and including No. 
]39 to and including No. 266. 

Akchie Bakek, 
Clive Reichman, 
Clyde P. Hantz, 
R. H. Snyder, 

Official Counters. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 

W. E. Thompson. 
This oath may be administered by tlie judge, clerk, or inspector. 

State of Okahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I. Theodore Gmalman, notary public, in and for Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, complete, and 
entire copy of the Exhibit 9 introduced in evidence by the contestee in the taking 
of depositions or evidence before me in the cause now pending before the House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

l^otary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

A. L. ENNEN, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, testifies: 

Direct examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. State your name, township, and voting precinct in which you live. — ^A. 
A. L. Ennen ; Lincoln Township ; precinct No. 10, Blaine County, State of Okla- 
homa. 

Q. What, if any, ofiicial position did you hold at the general election held 
November 5. 1912, in said precinct? — A. Inspector. 

Q. State what you did with the box containing the envelope which in turn 
contained the certificate of vote marked " Contestee's Exhibit No. 9 " after it was 
placed in your possession on the evening of November 5, 1912. — A. I took it 
home, kept it there over night, took it to Watonga the next morning, and turned 
it over to the county election board. 



142 . CARNF-Y VS. MORGAlSr. 

Q. While it was in your possession was tliis box unloclved? — A. No, sir. 
Q. While it was in your possession was there any opportunity given for this 
■certificate of vote to be changed or altered in any way? — A. No, sir. 

A. L. Ennen. 
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 1913. 
[SEAL.] Theodore Graalman. Notary PuUic. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

C. E. ALBIN. being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Direct examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. State your name and the township and voting precinct in which you live. — 
A. C. E. Albin; Logan Township; precinct No. 12, Blaine County, State of Okla- 
homa. 

Q. Was there an election held in said precinct on the 5th day of November, 
1912?— A. There was. 

Q. Were candidates for election as Congressmen from the second district of 
the State of Oklahoma voted for in said precinct on said day? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold in said precinct on said day? — 
A. Clerk. 

Q. Calling your attention to Contestee's Exhibit 11, I will ask you to state 
what it is. — .A. Certificate of vote of said precinct 

Q. Did you see this certificate made out? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is this your signature at the bottom thereof? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Asking you to examine this Exhibit No. 11, I will ask you if it is in the 
-same condition now as when you signed it on the night of the election? — ^A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you see the counters sign their names to said certificate? — A. Yes, sir. 

C. B. Albin. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 1913. 

[SEAL.] Theodore Graalman, Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

R. I. TEMPLE, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Direct examination by Mr. Morgan : 

G. State your name, the township and voting precinct, county and State in 
which you live. — A. R. I. Temple, Watonga Township, precinct No. 20, Blaine 
County, State of Oklahoma. 

Q. Was there an election held in said voting precinct on said day at which 
votes were cast for Congressmen in the second district of the State of Okla- 
homa? — A. Yes. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold on that day in said precinct? — 
A. Inspector of election. 

Q. Were you present at the polling place all of that day up to the time the 
election board ad.iourned? — A. Yes. 

Q. Was the election board duly organized that morning before receiving bal- 
lots?— A. Yes. 

Q. Who acted as counters in s;iid precinct at said election? — A. W. J. Wells, 
G. W. Grote. R A. Burford, and J. W. Winn. 

Q. Who acted as clerk and .judge at said election? — A. C. E. Harriott acted 
«s clerk and William Hagan as .judge. 

Q. Calling your attention to Contestee's Exhibit No. 2. I will ask you to state 
what that is? — ^A. Certificate of the vote cast at said election. 

Q. For State oflicers? — ^A. For State officers and State questions. 

Q. Were you present when that sheet was made out? — A. Yes. 

Q. Calling your attention to the signatures at the bottom, I will ask you if 
those are the signatures of the counters? — A. They are. 

Q. Is that your signature at the bottom of the sheet? — A. It is. 

Q. After this sheet was made out and signed, what was done with it? — A. My 
recollection is that we were to have three copies of this, one to be turned over 
to the county election board, one to be locked in the ballot box with the returns 
and one to be kept by the inspector. Just which one this is I don't know. 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 143 

Q. Stating to you that this sheet was brought here by E. R. Taylor, clerk of 
the district court, iu this county, and that he has heretofore testified that he 
took it from the ballot box of precinct No. 20, Watonga Township, I now ask 
you what was done with this sheet after it was signed? 

Mr. Emery. Objected to as leading, suggestive, question being in the nature 
of the statement of a fact not testified to by the witness. 

A. Well, it among others, was put in an envelope market! " Returns." My 
recollection is that it was securely sealed and stamped, according to law. 

Q. What was then done with the envelope in which this sheet was placed? — 
A. It was placed in the ballot box and locked up. 

Q. What was then done with the box in which the envelope was placed? A. 

It was turned over to the county election board. 

Q. Who had charge of this between the time the box was locked and the time 
it was placed iu the hands of the county election board? — A. I did. 

Q. Was there any opportunity given during the time that this box was in 
your possession to change or alter Contestee's Exhibit No. 2? — A. There was 
not. 

Q. Asking you to examine Contestee's Exhibit No. 2, I will ask you if it is in 
the same condition now that it was when it was signed by the counters and 
yourself? — A. I think so, except the identifying marks. 

Q. Do you notice any marks of alteration or change thereon? — A. No. 

(Contestee now offers in evidence Contestee's Exhibit No. 2, and asks that 
a true, correct, and complete copy thereof be attached to the deposition of this 
witness. ) 

Mr. Emeey. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and not identified, proven, 
or authenticated. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Emery : 

Q. Mr. Temple, did any negroes vote in your precinct? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and 
Improper cross-examination. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How many? 

Mr. Morgan. Same objection as last above stated. 

A. I do not know for sure. 

Q. Give your best judgment. — A. Probably 20 or 25. 

Q. Out of this numbei- how many did you apply the test to concerning their 
qualifications under the State laws? — A. To all but two. 

Q. Just state whether or not tliese two were able to read and write. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and 
improper cross-examination. 

A. Think they were. 

Q. Are you acquainted with H. N. Boardman? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and 
improper cross-examination. 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did you see those letfers and an article entitled " Talk it over with your 
wife," the letter being signed by Mr. Boardman as United States district 
attorney ? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as being incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
and improper cross-examination. 

A. I saw the article and a circular letter purporting to be signed by 
Boardman. 

Q. Do you remember to whom this letter was directed? 

Mr. Morgan. Objection, for the reason last above stated. 

A. My impression now is that it was addressed to the election ofliicials, but I 
am not positive. 

Q. I hand the witness Exhibit B, attached to the contestant's notice and 
grounds of contest, and ask the witness to examine it and state whether or not 
that Exhibit B purports to be a copy of the circular letter. 

Mr. Morgan. Objection for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrele- 
vant, and immaterial, and improper cross-examination, and for the reason that 
it has not been shown that the contestee, nr any one for or in his behalf, wrote, 
had printed, or sent out a letter marked " Exhibit B " attached to contestant's 
notice of contest. 

A. Yes ; it does. 



144 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

Q. Is It the common understanding among the people of this county, and 
particularly among those who know Mr. Boardman, that he received his ap- 
pointment as United States district attorney through the influence of Dick T. 
Morgan ? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and as 
calling for a conclusion and understanding of the witness and is incompetent, 
irrelevant, and immaterial. 

A. I think so. 

Q. What part, if any, did Mr. Boardman take in the campaign of Mr. Morgan 
for Congress in the year 1910, if you know? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
improper cross-examination. 

A. I think he was his campaign manager. 

Q. Prior to the election of 1912 how long had you been the inspector of your 
precinct? — A. Only a day or two — three or four days, you might say. 

Q. What became of the man who had been serving as inspector, or why was 
it he did not serve in the election? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
improper cross-examination. 

A. The inspector's name was W. A. Stevenson, and he resigned as inspector 
on account of being afraid to enforce the grandfather law, so he told me. 

Q. What was the cause of his fear, if you know? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
improper cross-examination. 

A. He told me that he was afraid of prosecution at the hands of the Federal 
authorities. ' 

Q. Do you know of any other inspectors who resigned for the same reason 
a few days before the election? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and 
improper cross-examination. 

A. Yes. 

Q. Just name some of them. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason last above stated. 

A. R. J. Smack, Jack Worrell, J. H. Ruckman. 

Q. What position did you occupy in the campaign, and how did you come 
into possession of this knowledge, and what efforts were made, if you know, 
to get men to serve as inspectors? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason last above stated. 

A. I was Democratic State committeeman. On that account was making 
inquiries about how the various inspectors stood on the grandfather law. In 
the precincts round about Watonga the election officials had much difficulty in 
getting anyone to serve as inspector. Same is true in East Lincoln. 

Q. Now, Mr. Temple, just state, if you know, what men had been requested to 
serve as inspector and who refused for fear of a Federal prosecution on account 
of this circular letter of Boardman's? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevaat, and immaterial, as im- 
proper cross-examination, and as an effort on the part of the contestant to prove 
statements and allegations contained in the contestant's notice of contest after 
the time allowed by law for taking testimony by the contestant has expired. 

A. E. L. Ashford, J. H. Temple, C. P. Temple, in precinct No. 20; Walter 
Ferguson, in the west precinct of Watonga. 

Q. To these inspectors who refused to serve and resigned and these men who 
refused to accept the appointment as inspectors, was the prosecutions of Beall 
and Quinn generally known? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reasons last stated above. 

A. I think so. 

Q. As the inspector in your precinct, did you allow or permit any negro to 
vote that otherwise you would not if you had not received or known of these 
threats of the Federal prosecution? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for reason that it assumes a state of facts not 
proven, incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and improper cross-examination, 
and as constituting an attempt and effort on the part of the contestant to prove 
statements and allegations contained in contestant's notice of contest after the 
time allowed for his taking of proof has expired, and as calling for a conclusion 
of the witness. 

A. Yes; there were some negroes voted whom I would not have permitted to 
vote had I been sure there would be no Federal prosecution. 



CAEISTEY VS. MOEGAN. 146 

Q. State, if you know, if your answer is true with reference to otlier precinct* 
in this county. 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrele- 
vant, and immaterial, and improper cross-examination, and being an effort on 
the part of the contestant to prove statements and allegations contained in con- 
testant's notice of contest, upon cross-examination, and after the time allowed 
by law for contestant to tnke testimony in support of the statements and allega- 
tions in his notice of contest. 

A. It is my opinion that all inspectors were more or less intimidated by 
threats of Federal prosecution. 

(Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the answer of the witness as 
being an opinion and conclusion of the witness. Comes now the contestee and 
moves to strike the entire cross-examination of this witness for the reason that 
the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and impropr cross- 
examination, and as being an effort on the part of the contestant to prove 
statements and allegations contained in the contestant's notice of contest, upoij 
cross-examination, and after the time allowed by law for taking testimony in 
support of the statements and allegations contained in contestant's notice of 
contest has expired. The original answer served on the said contestant, show- 
ing the said answer was served upon him on January 13, 1913, and more thim 
40 days having now expired since said answer was so served.) 

R. I. Templ^. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Geaalman. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Contestee's Exhibit 2. 

Certificate of vote. 

We, the undersigned official counters for the election held at precinct No. 20 
of Watonga Township of Elaine County on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 
A. D. 1912, hereby certify that the correct number of votes cast at said precinct 
in said election for the various candidates and for and against State questions 
Nos. 40 and 45 voted on is herein set forth in written words : 

For corporation commissioner: 

J. E. Love, Democrat, fifty-flve (55). 

P. J. Lowen, Republican, seventy-nine (79). 

C. E. HedgiDeth, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 
For presidenti;;! electors. State at large: 

Robert A. Baird, Democr;it, fiftj^-six (56). 

J. W. Bolen, Democrat fifty-two (52). 

H. H. Brenner, Democrat, fifty-two (52). 

Joseph W. Foster, fifty-four (54). 

W. W. Hastings, Democrat, fifty-four (54). 

Sam Mnssingale, Democrat, fifty-four (54). 

S. H. Mayes, Democrat, fifty-four (54). 

David Ratner. Democrat, fiftv-four (54). 

J. D. Scott, Democrat, fifty-five (55). 

J. C. Thompson, Democrat, fifty-four (54). 

George M. Flick, Republicim, eighty-four (84). 

Marshall W. Hinch, Republican, eighty-four (84). 

M. P. Howser, Republican, eightj^-four (84). 

H. L. Dix, Republican, eighty-four (84). 

Lindsey L. Long, Republican, eighty-two (82). 

W. L. McWillifims, Republican, eighty-four (84). 

Ret Millard, Republican, eighty-three (83). 

George E. Nickel Republican, eighty-three (83). 

Joseph G. R'lls, Republican, e'ghty-two (82). 

W. A. Williiuns, eighty-two (82). 

E. B. Barnes, Socialist, twenty-three (23). 

C. B. Boylan, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

A. R. Bradshaw, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

W. H. Davis, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

R. E. Dooley, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

Allen Fields, Socialist,, twenty-one (21). 

4252—13 10 



146 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

For presidential electors, State at large — Contiaued. 

Lewis B. Irviu, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

I. N. Johnson, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

; A. W. Renshaw, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 

Thos. W. Woodrow, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 
! M. Simpson A4,len, Prohibition, one (1). 
J. E. Brewer, Prohibition, one (1). 
Chas. Brown, Prohibition, one (1). 
- S. H. Brown, Prohibition, one (1). 
Taylor H. Ebersole, Prohibition, one (1). 
G. M. Hadduck, Prohibition, one (1). 
Chas. O. Jennings, one (1). 
J. H. Medaris, Prohibition, one (1). 
G. E. Rouch, Prohibition, one (1). 
H. E. Stri elder. Prohibition, one (1). 
For United States Senator : 
i Robt. L. Owen, Democrat, fifty-seven (57). 
J. T. Dickerson, Republican, eighty-four (84). 
John G. Wills, Socialist, twenty-four (24). 
For Congressman, State at large: 

Wm. H. Murray, Democrat. Fifty-four (54). 
Joe B. Thompson, Democrat, fifty-one (51). 
Claude Weaver, Democrat, fifty-four (54). 
Alvin D. Allen, Republican, seventy -nine (79). 
Jas. L. Brown, Republican, seventy-nine (79). 
Emory D. Brownlee, Republican, seventy-nine (79). 
Oscar Ameringei*, Socialist, twenty- three (23). 
J. T. Cumbie, Socialist, twenty-four (24). 
J. Luther Langston, Socialist, twenty-five (25). 
For justice supreme court, first district : 
' John B. Turner, Democrat, fifty-three (53). 

Charles Alston Cook, Republican, seventy-nine (79). 
For judge criminal court appeals, southern district : 
Henry M. Furman, Democrat, fifty- three (53). 
George T. Ralls, Republican, seventy-five (75). 
E. S. Hurt, Socialist, twenty-two (22). 
For Representative in Congress, second district : 
J. J. Carney, forty-eight (48). 
Die': T. I^Ioi-pm. eighty-nine (89). 
P. D. McKenzie, twenty-two (22). 
For State senator, sixteenth district : 
M. B. Carley, fifty-two (52). 
E. J. Warner, ninety-nine (99). 
S. H. Hendricksou, twenty-two (22), 
For representative: 

W. R. Kelly, forty-six (46), 
Geo: Jamison, seventy-eight (78), 
John T, Long, thirty-five (35). 
State question No. 45, referendum petition No, 25 : 
Shall it be adopted? 

Yes, thirty-five (35). 
No, forty-five (45). 
State question No. 45. referendum petition No, 17 : 
Shall the proposed amendment be adopted? 
Yes, forty-one (41). 
No,, twenty -nine (29). 
We further certify that there were 2 spoiled ballots, the consecutive num- 
bers of which were Nos. 27 and 66, and there were 120 unused ballots, the 
consecutive numbers of which were from and including Nos, 181 to 300. 

G. W. Gkote, 
J. W. Winn, 
W. J. Wills, 
Ira Burford, 
Official counters. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 5th day of November, A. D. 1912. 

R. I. Temple, Inspector. 
This oath may be administered by the judge, clerk, or inspector. 



CARNEY VS. MORGAIsr. 147 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss.: 

I, Theodore Graalman, notary public, in and for Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct, complete, 
and entire copy, except that it does not include taljy marks thereon which 
correspond with the figures shown, of the Exhibit 2 introduced in evidence 
by the contestee in the taking of depositions or evidence before me in the cause 
now pending before the House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress 
of the United States of America, wherein John J. Carney is contestant and 
Dick T. Morgan is contestee. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, • 

Notary Public, Blaine County, OMa. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

W. C. BROADY, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Q. State your name and residence. — A. Okeene. Okla. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold at the last general election, 
held on November 5, 1912? — A. Member of the county election board of Blaine 
County. State of Oklahoma. 

Q. When did the county election board of Blaine County, Okla., convene for 
the purpose of receiving returns of this election? — A. On the evening of the 
5th of November, 1912. 

Q. Was there an election held in the following precincts, Blaine County, 
State of Oklahoma, where the voters of the several precincts voted for the 
various party candidates for Congressmen in the second congressional district 
of the State of Oklahoma, to wit: Arapaho Township, precinct 8; Watonga 
Township, precinct 20; Cedar Valley Township, precinct 6; East Dixon Town- 
ship, precinct 9 ; West Dixon Township, precinct 28 : Canton Township, pre- 
cinct 23 ; West Lincoln Township, precinct 10 ; Carlton Township, precinct 29 ; 
East Lincoln Township, precinct 30; Logan Township, precinct 12; and Flynn 
Township, precinct 13? — A. There was. 

Q. How late did the county election board remain in session on the night of 
November 5, 1912? — A. We were there until 10 oclock. 

Q. Where did the county election board meet? — A. We received the returns 
in the room that we have in the basement of the courthouse. 

Q. What are the names of the two other members of the county election 
board? — A. Dan Hogan. chairman, and Tom Mosley, secretary. 

Q. When did you next reconvene? — A. About 9 oclock on the 6th in the 
morning. 

Q. I will ask you if. while you were in session, either on the night of the 
oth or -the day of the 6th, whether you received the ballot boxes from Arapaho 
Township, precinct 8, Blaine County, Okla.? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From Watonga Township. ]:)recinct 20? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From Cedar Valley Township, precinct 6?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. From East Dixon Township, precinct 9? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. West Dixon Township, precinct 28? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Canton Township, precinct 23? — ^A. Yes. 

Q. West Lincoln Township, precinct 10? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Carlton Township, precinct 29? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q, East Lincoln Township, precinct 30?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Logan Township, precinct 12? — A. Yes. 

Q. And Flynn Township, precinct No. 13? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. These voting precincts are all in Blaine Countey, State of Oklahoma, are 
they not? — A. Yes, sir. , , .^i • 

Q. And the boxes were all delivered to the county election board by the in- 
spector of each prechict. were they? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q What did the county election board do with resiiect to the returns from 
the election precincts above stated?— A. They tabulated the returns as they 
were brought in bv the inspectors — the certificates of votes. 

Q. You mean the tabulations were taken from the Exhibits 1 to 11, inclu- 
sive, heretofore introduced in evidence, or from copies thereof returned to the 
county election board by the various precinct boards?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you finish tabluating the votes cast for the candidates on the 
State ticket?— A. On the 7th of November, 1912. 

Q. You were still in session at that thne, were you?— A. Yes, sir. 



148 CAENEY VS. MOEGA]Sr. 

Q. What time of the day on the 7th did you finish tabulating the above re- 
turns or certificates of votes'? — A. It was all finished, except Mr. Hogan sign- 
ing the State tally sheet, by 5 o'clock. Mr. Mosley had signed the same. 

Q. Was there any place on the State tally sheet for you to sign? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Was Mr. Hogan in the room vphere you were tabulating these returns at 
the time Mr. Mosley signed them? — A. Well, I don't remember. 

Q. The tabulated statement you made out and which you say was ready by 
5 o'clock, except the signature thereof by Mr. Hogan, did it contain and show 
the returns from all of the precincts in Blaine County, State of Oklahoma? — A. 
Yes, sir; it did. 

Q. You are sure it contained the votes cast for candidates on the State ticket 
from the 11 precincts named above? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What occurred after this tabulated sheet had been prepared and signed 
by Mr. Mosley? — A. Mr. Mosley went to the typewriter, he addressed an enve- 
lope to the tSate election board at Oklahoma City and said to Mr. Hogan that he 
would like for him to sign up this evening, as we wanted to adjourn and get 
this business concluded, to which Mr. Hogan objected for the re.ison that we 
had not counted the mutilated ballots and I said that I hod never seen any 
record of there being any mutilated ballots. We went through the returns 
handed in by the inspectors and found no record of any mutilated ballots, but 
found a record of 29 spoiled ballots. Mr. Hogan also objected to signing the 
tabulated sheet to be sent to the State election board until he heard from Okla- 
homa City by telephone message. We adjourned and then I went home. The 
other members said they were going home and I also told them I was going 
home. 

Q. Did they say — either one of the other members of the election board — say 
anything to you about the work all being done and being through, except sign- 
ing up by Mr. Hogan? — A. Mr. Mosley did. 

Q. Did Mr. Mosley tell you from whom he was expecting a telephone mes- 
sage from Oklahoma City? — A. Said Mr. Hogan was expecting one from Mr. 
Gould, Mr. Carney's manager. 

Q. Do yovi know whether or not Mr. Hogan had been telephoning to Mr, 
Gould before that time? — A. He had been phoning to Oklahoma City, but I 
could not say whether or not he had talked with Mr. Gould. 

Q. Did you go home on the evening of the 7th? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When next did you return to Wa tonga? — A. On the next Wednesday, the 
13th. 

Q. What time of day did you arrive in Watonga? — A. About 9 o'clock. 

Q. What caused your return? — A. The chairman of the Republican central 
committee notified me that the election board was in session again, and they 
had been called to Oklahoma City and had come back to this county and was 
going to throw out some of the voting precincts of this county. 

Mr. Emery. We move to strke out the answer of the witness as Incompetent. 

Q. What did you do upon your return here to Watonga? — A. I tried to find 
the election board. They wasn't at their office. I also phoned to different 
places and couldn't find them. 

Q. Did you phone to Mr. Mosley's home? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did you phone to Mr. Hogau's home. — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you make inquiries as to their whereabouts? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were you in town in Watonga all that day? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When did you return home? — A. On the 5.35 train that evening. 

Q. Did you go in the room which had been used by the county election board 
in tabualting the votes the week before? — A. No; the door was locked. 

Q. Did you have a key to this room"? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you look inside the room through the window? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Were the election boxes in there? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When next did you return to Watonga? — A. The next day — the 14th. 

Q. What did you do when you returned to Watonga on the 14th? — A. I went 
to the court house. 

Q. Did you again try to enter the room that had been used by the county 
election board? — A. Yes, sir. 

■Q. What all did you do that day? — A. I found the members in the county 
treasurer's office. 

Q. State what conversation you had with them at that time. — A. Well, I 
asked them to go down to the election board's office, which they did, and they 
told me they had thrown out 11 voting precincts. 



CAKlSfEY VS. MORGAIS". 149 

Q. What precincts did they say they had thrown out? — A. Had thrown out 
Carlton, precinct No. 29; Canton, precinct No. 23; Arapaho. precinct No. 8; 
Watonga Township, precinct No. 20; Cedar Valley, precinct No. 6; Bast Dixon, 
precinct No. 9 ; West Dixon, precinct No. 28 ; West Lincoln Township, precinct 
No. 10; Enst Lincoln, precinct No. 30; Logan, precinct No. 12; and Flynn Town- 
ship, precinct No. 13. 

Q. Did they say anything to you about where they had been since the board 
had adjourned on the 7th of November. 1912? — A. Yes, sir; they said they had 
received notice to come to Oklahoma City and they went. 

Q. Did they say to whom they had talked there? — A. Said they talked to 
Attorney General West; Gov. Cruce; Mr. Harrell, the Democratic chairman; 
Mr. Riley, secretary of the State election board; also Mr. Gould; and they 
were ordered to come back -here for an investigation. They came back, made 
an investigation, and went back to Oklahoma City. 

Q. Did they say who they had talked with when they returned from Okla- 
homa City the second time? — A. Well, I don't Imow as they did; I presume it 
was the same parties. 

Mr. Emery. We move to strike out the last answer of the witness as a 
conclusion. 

Q. Whom did they say had told them to throw out these boxes? — A. Well, 
they said the governor. I said, " Did the governor tell you to throw out these 
prec-incts?" And he said if things was the way they were represented he 
thought he had authority to. 

Q. By "he" you mean Gov. Cruce? — A. Yes, sir — and also Attorney General 
AVest. 

Q. What other conversation did you have with either Mr. Mosley or Mr, 
Hogan concerning the throwing out of these 11 boxes, or the vote in these 11 
precincts? — A. Mr. Mosley said the reason that they didn't notify me was 
because they wanted to get ahead of mandamus proceedings. If they told me, 
I would tell what went on. 

Q. State any other conversation you had with either Mr. Mosley or Mr. 
Hogan on this occasion. — A. Well, there were other things talked about, but 
I don't .lust remember. 

Q. Did they say anything -about making up a new tabulated statement to 
send to the State board? — A. I think they said they had made out a tabulated 
statement, with 11 precincts not shown. 

Q. When did Mr. Mosley or Mr. Hogan say they had made up this new 
certificate leaving out the il precincts to send to the State board? — A. To the 
best of my recollection, it was Wednesday night. 

Q. That was the 12th? — A. Yes; Wednesday, anyway. 

Q. Between what hours did they say they had made it out? — ^A. I think they 
said they arrived in Watonga that evening. 

Cross-examination by Mr. Emery : 

Q. Mr. Broady, directing your attention to the meeting of November 7, the 
evening that you state in your testimony the certificates were made out, state 
fully what was said and done by yourself and Messrs. Hogan and Mosley on 
your separating. — A. When the certificates were signed I asked the members 
if the business was all done, and they said it was all done, except Mr. Hogan 
signing the certificates of election, and also the State tally sheet; and I said 
if we were all through with me I was going home on the 5.35 train. Mr. 
Mosley said he was going home, and I supposed that was an agreement, but 
I said when I left, " If anything happens, notify me." 

Q. Was there any motion made to ad.1ourn? — A. No, sir. 

Q. When you separated only one member of the county election board had 
signed the certificate, and that was Mr. Mosley? — A. Mv. Mosley and myself. 

Q. When you say that you signed the certificate, you have reference to the 
certificates on the county tickets? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. On the State certificate and tally sheets was there any place for you to 
sign? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Now, on the State tally sheets and certificate that one member had signed, 
on the board separating on the evening of November 7, that was Mr. Mosley? — 
A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You state in your testimony that you were going home and Mr. Mosley 
was going home, but what was Mr. Hogan going to do? — A. He said he was 
going home. 

Q. Mr. Hogan was chairman of the board? — A. Yes, sir. 



150 CAENEY VS. MOEGAlSr. 

Q. There was a place or line on the State certificates and tally sheets for 
the chairman to sign? — A. On the State certificate there was. 

Q. Why didn't Mr. Hogan sign the State certificate before the three members 
of the board went home? — A. Well, I don't know positively. 

Q. It would be necessary for Mr. Hogan to sign the State certificate before 
sending the same, together with the tally sheet, to the State election board?— 
A. I think it would be necessary for him to sign the certificate; sure. 

Q. What reason did Mr. Hogan give for not signing the certificates before the 
three members of the board went home? — ^A. He said we had not counted the 
mutilated ballots. 

Q. Anything else? — ^A. I think he said that he had a call into Oklahoma City 
and ho wanted to hear from that. 

Q. Anything else? — A. That is all. 

Q. Now, Mr. Broady, didn't Mr. Hogan say that he would not sign the certifi- 
cate because there would have to be an investigation concerning the conduct of 
the election in some of the precincts? — A. Not to my recollection he didn't. 

Q. If he did say it you did hear it? — A. No, sir. 

Q. What did Hogan say he had this call into Oklahoma City for? — ^A. He 
didn't tell me. 

Q. At this time, on November 7, 1912, how long had you been serving on the 
county election board? — ^A. I believe something over a year; about a year, I 
guess. 

Q. During this time you have attended more or less of the meetings of the 
county election board? — A. Yes. 

Q. Was it not the custom, if not the rule, to make a formal motion to adjourn 
before separating and going to your home? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as calling for a conclusion of the witness and not for 
a statement of the fact and calling for a custom. 

A. It was not. 

Q. Have you ever examined the minutes of the county election board, and if 
so, have you found any record of adjournments? — ^A. I haven't examined the 
record. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. To what political party, if you know, do Mr. Hogan and Mr. Mosley 
belong? — ^A. Democratic. 

Q. Regarding the custom of the county election board of Blaine County, I 
will ask you has it been the custom upon the adjournment of its sessions ta 
have any formal motion to adjourn made? — A. No, sir; not since I have been a 
member": except on the 13th I asked for a motion adjourning the county election 
board. 

Q. Are you acquainted with the signatures of Mr. Dan Hogan and Mr. Tom 
Mosley? — A. Well, I don't think I'd know Mr. Hogan' s, but I think I'd recognize 
Mr. Mosley's. 

Recross-examination by Mr. Emery : 
Q. How many meetings of the county election board had you attended before 
the meetings in November, 1912? — A. I would say three. 

W. C. Broady. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of February, A. D. 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Graalman, Notary Public. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

T. W. MOSLEY, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Q. State your name and residence. — A. T. W. Mosley, Blaine County, Okla. 

Q. How long have you lived in Blaine County? 

(Now Capt. Emery informs the witness of his rights under the Constitution 
of the United States' of refusal to answer any question or questions propounded 
to him concerning the election held in this county in November, 1912, on the 
account of the criminal action growing out of said election now pending and 
undetermined in the United States District Court for the Western District of 
Oklahoma, for the reason that the said evidence might be used in the said 
action against him, and might in some way incriminate him.) 

(Porter H. Morgan, attorney for contestee, now states to the witness that the 
following is section 116 of the Revised Statutes of the United States of America, 
to wit: 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 151 

"Any person who, having been summoned in the manner above directed, re- 
fuses or neglects to attend and testify, unless prevented by sickness or unavoid- 
able necessity, shall forfeit the sum of $20, to be recovered with costs of suit 
by the party at whose instance the subpoena was issued and for his use by au 
action of debt in any court of the United States, and shall also be liable to ah 
indictment for a misdemeanor and punished by a fine and imprisonment." 

(Capt. Emery informs the witness that the statute just read by counsel for 
the contestee has no application to a witness under prosecution for violating the 
criminal statutes growing out of the election concerning which he will be inter- 
rogated by the contestee.) 

A. About 20 years in Blaine County, Okla. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold in Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 5th day of November, 1912? ■ 

Mr. Emery. The opinion of counsel for the contestant as to whether or not 
the witness was secretary of county election board is a material allegation iti 
the indictment, and the burden is upon the United States to prove it. 

Mr. Morgan (to Mr. Emery). Are you here as counsel for the contestant 
herein, John J. Carney? — A. Yes. 

Q. Have you been and are you now counsel for the witness, T. W. Mosley, 
in the matter in the Federal District Court of the Western District of the State 
of Oklahoma, in which Mr. Mosley is defendant? — A. I have never appeared 
for Mr. Mosley as counsel. '< 

Q. Mr. Mosley, were you at the courthouse in Blaine County, State of Okla- 
homa, on the evening of November 5, 1912? — A. (No answer.) 

Mr. Morgan. The witness, by failing and neglecting to answer the question's 
propounded to him and his acquiescence in the objection by Mr. Emery to 
testifying herein, an adjournment is taken by order of the notary public until 
8.30 o'clock a. m., February 28, at which time the witness not appearing, pro- 
ceedings were had as hereafter set out herein. The witness appearing at 10.30 
o'clock a. m., February 28, and refusing further to testify, he was excused from 
giving further evidence. 

Tom Moselet. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2Sth day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Theodore Graalman, Notary PtiWic. 

My commission expires January IT, 1915. 

E. H. LOOKABAUGH. being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Q. State your name and residence? — A. E. H. Lookabaugh, Watonga, Okla. , 

Q. Did you reside in Watonga during the month of November, 1912? — A. 
Yes, sir. 

Q. What, if any, oflacial position did you hold in the Republican Party during 
the campaign in the fall of 1912? — A. Chairman of Blaine County Republican 
central committee. 

Q. Were you acquainted in the fall of 1912 with Tom Mosley, secretary of 
the county election board of Blaine County, and Dan Hogan, chairman of the 
county election board of Blaine County, Okla.? — A. I was. 

Q. State what, if any, conversation you had with either Mr. Mosley or Mr. 
Hogan on or about the 8th of November, 1912, and state where the conversa- 
tion was had and in whose presence. — ^A. I had a conversation with Tom Mosley, 
secretary, about the 8th of November, at which time I inquired of him why 
it was that the certificates of election h.nd not been issued and the returns trans- 
mitted to the State election board on State and congressional candidates for 
Blaine Covinty by the election board, and whether or not there was any truth 
in the rumor that they were intending to throw out several precincts in Blaine 
County, and in answer to this Mr. Mosley stated that he didn't think there was 
anything in the rumor as to the throwing out of precincts and thought every- 
thing would be all right in that line, but further stated that there was some 
objection being made and claims made that there had been illegal votes cast in 
some of the precincts in the county, and the matter was being held up pending 
an investigation of those matters. 

Q. When next did you have a conversation with either Mr. Mosley or Mr. 
Hogan? — A. About the 10th of November, further inquiring of Mr. Mosley as to 
what was being done, and why the certificates and i*eturns were delayed. He 
stated to me that they were making an investigation in several precincts for 
the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the illegal votes had been cast and 



152 CAEISrEY vs. MOEGAN, 

the grandfather clause not enforced as to negroes, arid stated to me at that 
time that it was his understanding that if a negro voted without having first 
feefen put to the test under the grandfather law that the vote was illegal, not- 
withstanding the fact that the local election board may have been satisfied that 
he was eligible under that law. 

Q. When next did you have a conversation with either Mr. Hogan or Mr. 
Mosley concerning this matter, and what was the occasion of your having the 
Conversation with them? — A. On the morning of the 13th of November, I think 
it was. after the information had gotten out and became public that 11 precincts 
of Blaine County had not been counted in the final certificate of return, I, in 
company with Harrison Brown, the congressional committeeman, went to see 
Mr. Hogan and Mr. Mosley, who were together, and asked them whether or 
not it was a fact, that these precincts had been thrown out, at which time, and 
while they were together Mr. Mosley stated to us that it was a fact, and that 11 
i»reeincts was the number that they had refused to certify, but stated further 
that in his judgment they should have thrown out 16 precincts, and on being 
asked by myself why he didn't do so, he stated that he couldn't get them to do 
it. A short time after this, on the same day, myself, together with a number 
Of the other Republicans, chief among whom were Harrison Bro^^'Tl, E. J. 
Warner, W. H. Phillips, Seymour Foose, and Theodore Graalman, Louis Vogt, 
W. F. Schultz, and others met Mr. Hogan and Mr. Mosley at Hooper's drug 
store in Watonga and asked whether or not the board was in session, at which 
time we were informed by them that they were not, but they could convene at 
any time, whereupon we asked of them if we could not be shown the records, 
returns, and minutes of their proceeding in the matter of refusing to count the 
. returns of these 11 precincts. Mr. Hogan and Mr. Mosley then accompanied us 
to the ofiice of the county election board and allowed us to get the information 
,we desired. 

Q. Did they show you a statement prepared by them, or by the board of the 
I'esult of the vote in all the precincts in Blaine County on a shee*^ used for 
making the return of the votes on the State ticket to the State election board? — 
A. I don't believe that I saw that certificate. 

Q. Did you see the returns from these 11 precincts which had beeu thrown 
out? — ^A. I did. I saw each certificate as certified by the local board and 
official counters. 

Q. That is, you saw the certificate made by the precinct election board as 
to the result in each precinct, of the votes cast for State officers, among which 
Was the vote for Congressman in the second district of the State of Oklahoma, 
of the following precincts, to wit, Arapaho Township, precinct No. 8; Watonga 
Township, precinct No. 20; Cedar Valley Township, precinct No. 6; East Dixon 
Township, precinct No. 9 ; West Dixon Township, precinct No. 28 ; Canton 
^Township, precinct No. 23; West Lincoln Township, precinct No. 10; Carlton 
Township, precinct No. 29; East Lincoln Township, precinct No. 30; Logan 
township, precinct No. 12, and Flynn Township, precinct No. 13, all in Blaine 
County, State of Oklahoma? — ^A. No, sir; we did not look for certificates of 
the State and Congressional returns. 

Q. Did Mr. Mosley or Mr. Hogan say anything about having been to Okla- 
homa City? — A. Yes", Mr. Mosley told me that they went to Oklahoma City. 

Q. What, if anything else, did he say concerning their being at Oklahoma 
Qity? — A. He said they were called to Oklahoma City by the State election 
board in regard to these claimed illegal votes. 

Q. Did Mr. Mosley or Mr. Hogan say whom they had talked with in Oklahoma 
Qity? — A. I don't think Mr. Mosley stated just whom he talked to, but said 
that he had seen Riley, secretary of the State election board, and others higher 
in authority in regard to these matters. 

Q. Did you have any other conversation with Mr. Mosley concerning this 
matter? — A. Nothing of any importance that I can remember of. 

E. H. LOOKABAUGH. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 28th day of February, A. D. 1913. 
[seal.] Theodobe Gsoalman, Notary Puhlic. 

: My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

SEYMOUR FOOSE. being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, 
atid nothing but the truth, testifies : 

Q'. State your name and residence and business.— A. Seymour FoOSe, Watonga, 
6'laine County, Okla. ; I am engaged in practicing law. 



CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 153 

Q. How long have you lived in Watonga ? — ^A. It will be 21 years the 19th of 
next April. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Tom Mosley and Dan Hogan, members of the 
county election board of Blaine County. Okla.?— A. Yes. 

Q. I will ask you to state whether or not, on or about the 13th day of Novem- 
ber, 1912, you had a conversation with them? — A. I did. 

Q. Where did this conversation take place and who were present? — A. The 
conversation began at Hooper's drug store, in Watonga, and was continued at 
the courthouse after going there from the drug store. 

Q. Who were present during these conversations? — A. Well, during a part of 
the time different persons were present. There were some more present at the 
courthouse than there were at the drug store. I can name several who were 
present at the courthouse. They were E. H. Lookabaugh, W. H. Phillips, Har- 
rison Brown, E. J. Warner, E. N. Pierson, Louis Vogt. and possibly some others. 
These parties were not all present all of the time, but part of them were present 
a part of the time. 

Q. State what conversation took place between yourself and either Mr. Mosley 
or Mr. Hogan on this occasion, or between other persons besides Mr. Hogan or 
Mr. Mosley? — A. Upon finding Mr. Hogan and Mr. Mosley at the drug store, 
they were asked if they would go to the courthouse and show us the books, 
papers, and records of the county election board. They said they would and 
went with us to the courthouse. 1 asked to be shown their minute book con- 
taining the record of their proceedings as a board, and also the election returns 
from the 11 precincts that they had thrown out and refused to count. They 
took us into the room in the basement of the courthouse and from a desk took 
or produced their minute book and the election returns asked for, and we there 
examined the same. There was other conversations back and forth, all of the 
details of which I do not recall exactly; but Mr. Mosley, upon producing the 
minute book, said that was the book in which he had entered the proceedings 
of the board taking place since the election. I asked him if it contained all 
the minutes of their proceedings that he had made, and he said it did. As the 
election returns of the 11 precincts asked for were produced by Mr. Mosley, 
he stated that they were the returns that the board had received from those 
several precincts. I asked him if they had completed their canvas and made 
out and delivered the certificates of election to the county candidates and certi- 
fied their returns on the State ballot, Including candidates for Congress, to the 
State election board, and he answered they had. I then asked him when this 
was done, and he answered they had all been put in the mail. I asked him 
when they were mailed, and he said, hesitating. "Yesterday evening." I asked 
him if they had gone out from the post ofiice yet. and he said he didn't know. 
I asked him what time in the evening they were mailed, and he answered they 
had all been put in the mail. 

Q. Did he state to .you whether or not. as regards the returns of the county 
election board of Blaine County to the State election board of Oklahoma, they 
had left out the vote in these 11 precincts? — A. He did, in substance. He said 
that thej^ had thrown out these 11 precincts and had not counted them in making 
up the vote, either on Congressman or on the county ticket. 

Q. At the time of your examination of the minute book shown to you by 
Mr. Mosley did you take any copy of what was there shown? — A. I took a copy 
of everyth'ng that was in the minute book subsequent to the date of, the general 
election in November, 1912. 

Q. Have you in your possession the copy of that record that you took at that 
time: and if so. please produce it? — A. I have, and I here produce it. 

(Contestee now asks that the two sheets produced by the witness be marked 
■" Contestee's Exhibit 14." 

Q. TTais Exhibit 14 you copied directly from the record of the county election 
board of Blaine County, did you? — A. I did in my own handwriting and was 
very careful to copy the record exactly and verbatim. 

Q. At the top of the first sheet are the words " Watonga 6-1912." I will ask 
you what, if any, explanation Mr. Mosley, the secretary of the county election 
board, made to you as to that entry? — A. While making this copy I called his 
attention to this date line, and he said that it meant November 6, 1912, that he 
had omitted the name of the month by mistake. 

Q. When you speak about the 11 precincts that were thrown out you have 
reference to Arapaho Township, precinct No. 8 : Watonga Township, precinct 
No. 20 ; Cedar Valley Township, precinct No. 6 ; East Dixon Township, precinct 
No. 9 ; West Dixon Township, precinct No. 28, Canton Township, precinct No. 23 ; 



154 CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 

West Lincoln Townsbip, precinct No. 10; Carlton Township, precinct No. 29? 
East Lincoln Township, precinct No. 30 ; Logan Township, precinct No. 12 ; and 
Flynn Township, precinct No. 13, all in Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, do 
you not? — A. Yes, sii^. 

Seymour Foose, 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28th day of February, A. D. 1913. 

[SEAJL.] Theodore Graalman, Notary PiiMic. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

Contestee's Exhibit 14. 

Watonga, 6-1912. 
The Blaine County election board met for the purpose of receiving the returns 
from the various precincts of the county and to make an official count of the 
returns : 

Morgan, Dick 1, 351 

Carney, J. J 1,171 

180 

Carlev 1, 063 

Warner. E. 3 1,438 

375 

Kelly. Dr 1, 053 

Jameison 1, 366 

313 

Capital, No. 40 : 

Yes 840 

No - 1, 532 

School No. 45 : 

Yes 1, 20O 

No - 911 

Agriculture, 38: 

Yes 2, 107 

No 1, 127 

980 

T. W. MOSLEY. 



Watonga, Okla., Nov. 8, 1912. 
T'he official returns as shown after 11 precincts were thrown out on account 
of the election law not being enforced leaves the official returns as follows : 



Carney 814 

Morgan 772 

Carley 721 

Warner 849 



Kelly 711 

Jamison 825 

Longl 395 

T. W. MoSLEY. 



SUBPOENAS. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

W. C. Broady : 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAlSr. 155 

as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Hereof fail not under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and aflBxed my seal this 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[SEAL.] THEODOEE GRAALMAN, 

Notary Puhlic, Blaine County, State of Olclahoma. 
My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of Feb- 
ruary, ]I913, and served the same upon the within-named W. C. Broady by 
delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 25th day of 
February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
Fee, 75 cents. 



State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
Tom Mosley: 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 
as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein .John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you the returns received from 
the precinct election boards of the following precincts, to wit : Arapahoe Town- 
ship, Watonga Township, Cedar Valley Township, East Dixon Township, West 
Dixon Township, Canton Township, West Lincoln Township, Carlton Township, 
East Lincoln Township, Logan Township, Flynn Township, all in Blaine County, 
State of Oklahoma, by the county election board of Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma, of the result of the general election held in said voting precincts on 
the 5th day of November, 1912, as between candidates for offices on the State 
ticket, together with the tally sheets used by said precinct election boards at 
said election as to said candidates, and all books kept by the county election 
board of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, showing the record of the action 
of the said last-named board in respect to the canvass of the returns of the 
said election pertaining to certain matters in controversy between said parties, 
and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
25th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Puhlic, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expire January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of Febru- 
ary, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named Tom Mosley by delivering 
a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 25th day of February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
Fee, 75 cents. 



v^tate of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

E. R. Taylor: 
' You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 



156 CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

as a witness in a certain action or contest pencl'ng before tlie honornble House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Confjress of the United Stfites of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestfint and Dicls; T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, nnd bring with yon the returns received from the 
precinct election bonrds of the following precincts, to wit: Arapnhoe Township, 
Watonga Township, Cedfir Valley Township, E;ist Dixon Township, West Dixon 
Township, Canton Township, West Lincoln Township, Carlton Township. East 
Lincoln Township, Logan Township. Flynn Township, all in Blaine County, 
State of Oklahoma, by the county election board of Blnine County, State of 
Oklahoma, of the result of the general election held in said voting precincts on 
the 5th day of November, 191.2, as between candidates for offices on the St^^te 
ticket, together with the tally sheets used by said precinct election boards at 
said election as to said candidates, and all books left by the county election 
board of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, showing the record of the action 
of the said last-named board in respect to the canvass of the returns of the 
said election pertaining to certain matters in controversy between said par- 
ties, and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof, fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
25th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oldahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of Feb- 
ruary, 3913. and served the same upon the within-named E. R. Taylor by de- 
livering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 25th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1913. 

Lee A. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
Fee, 75 cents. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
James Dimmitt : 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February. 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify as a 
witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Hereof fail not under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 
24th day of January, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oldahotna. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same apon the within-named James Dimmitt 
by delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 25th day of 
February, 1913. 

Lee A. Akin, 
. Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
Fee, 75 cents. 



State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

A. li. Slayton : 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 



CAENEY VS. MOKGAN. 157 

as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you a copy of the return of the 
Canton Township precinct election board showing the results of the election 
held therein November 5. 1912, as to candidates upon the State ticket, pertain- 
ing to certain matters in controversy between said parties, and not depart 
without le ve of the undersigned. 

Whereof fail not under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I ha\e hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal thia 
the 24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

'Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oldahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
P^'ebruary. 1913, and served the same upon the within-named A. L. Slayton by 
delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him (A. L. Stayton) on the 
25th d, y of P^ebruary 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oldahoma. 
Fee, 75 cents. 



State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To P\ A. Wallen. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights and 
Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State of Okla- 
homa, on the 27th day of February. 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify as a 
witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Represeiitatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, ;^.nd not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Hereof f.iil not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Puhlic, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within named F. A. "fallen, 
by delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 25th day of 
February, 1913. 

P^ee, 75 cents. 



Lee A. Akin, 

Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 



State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To L. R. Howell. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights and 
Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State of Okla- 
homa, on the 27th day of Febiniary, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify as a 
witness in :i certain ct'on or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and not depart without leave of the under-signed. 

Hereof fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 



158 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within named L. R. Howell, by 
delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 25th day of 
February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
Fee, 75 cents. 



I^TATE OF Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 
To John McGee. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga. county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 
as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable 
House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United Sates of 
America, wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is con- 
testee, on the part of the contes*^ee therein, and bring with you a copy of the 
returns of the Carlton Township precinct election board showing the result 
of the election held therein November 5, 1912, as to candidates upon the State 
ticket, pertaining to certain matters in controversy between said parties, and 
not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[SEAL.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the v.ithin subpoena on the 25th day of 
February. 1913. and served the same upon the within-named John McGee by de- 
livering a true and correct copy of the same to the said John McGee on the 25th 
day of February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
Fee, 75 cents. 



State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 
To Henry Speeitzer. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga. county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 
as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you a copy of the returns of the 
East Lincoln Township precinct election board showing the results of the 
election held therein on November 5, 1912, as to candidates on the State ticket, 
pertaining to certain matters in controversy between said parties, and not 
depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof, fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary PulMc, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within named Henry Spreitzer 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 159 

by delivering a true and correct copy of the same to tlie said Henry Spreitzer 
on th-j 25tli day of February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
Fee, 75 cents. 



State ©f Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To William Hagan. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify as a 
witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Hereof fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 
the 24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Commission expires January 17, 1915. 
State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss:' 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 24th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within named William Hagan by 
delivering a true and correct copy of the same to the said William Hagan on 
the 24th day of February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Fee, 75 cents. 



State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To. J. R. Whislee. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 
as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Represen«^atives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you a copy of return of Arapahoe 
Township precinct election board showing the result of the election held in 
said precinct on November 5, 1912, as to candidates upon the State ticket, 
pertaining to certain matters in controversy between said parties, and not 
depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof, fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[SF^L.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Puhlic, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Okiahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 24th day of Febru- 
ary, 1913, and served the same upon the within named J. R. Whisler, by deliver- 
ing a true and correct copy of the name to the said J. R. Whisler on the 24th day 
. of February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
Fee, 75 cents. 



160 CAENEY VS. MOKGAN. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To William Carter. 

You are hereby cominaiidecl to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February. 1913, at S o'clock a. m., to testify as a 
witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof fail not under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 
the 24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman. 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of OklaJioma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 
State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named William Carter by 
delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 25th day of 
February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Fee, 75 cents. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To C. E. Albin. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify as a 
witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honornble House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you * * * pertaining to cer- 
tain mutters in controversy between said parties, and not depart without leave 
of the undersigned. 

Whereof fail not under penalty of lav\r. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
25th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary PuNic Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 
State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named C. E. Albin by 
delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 25th day of 
February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Fee, 75 cents. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

To John B. Lemon. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m. to testify as a 
witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United Strifes of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant, and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you * * * pertaining to cer- 
tain matters in controversy between said parties, and not depart without leave 
of the undersigned. 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 1'61 

Whereof fail not under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
25th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Thkodore Geaalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
My coromission expires 17th day of January, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1913, and served the same upon the withiu-named John B. Lemon by 
delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 25th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
By E. N. Pearson, 

His Deputy. 
Fee, 75 cents. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To R. I. Temple. 

Ton are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, comity of Blaine, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify as a 
witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant, and Dick T'. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein and bring with you copy of the return of the 
Watonga Township precinct election board, showing the result of the election 
held in said precinct on November 5, 1912, as to candidates on the State 
ticket pertaining to certain matters in controversy between said parties, and 
not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof fail not under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
24th day of February. 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary PiiNic, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires 17th day of January, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named R. I. Temple by deliv- 
ering a true and correct copy of the same to the said R. I. Temple on the 25th 
day of Febnaary, 1913. 

Lee A. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
By E. N. Pearson, 

His Deputy. 
Fee, 75 cents. 

State of Oklahoma, 

Oklahoma County, ss: 
To A. L. Ennen : 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 
as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you a copy of the returns of the 
West Lincoln Township precinct election board showing the results of the 
election held therein November 5, 1912, as to candidates upon the State ticket, 
pertaining to certain matters in controversy- between said parties, and not 
depart without leave of the undersigned. 

4252—13 11 



162 CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

Whereof fail not under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

'Notary Public, Blaine County, State of OMahomn. 
My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, 

Oklahoma County, ss: 
I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 24th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named A. L. Ennen by 
delivering a true and cori-ect copy of the same to the said A. L. Ennen on the 
26th day of February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
By Chas. M. Kelley, 

His Deputy. 
Fee, 75 cents. 



State of Oklahoma, 

Blaine County, ss: 
To J. A. Dunn: 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify as 
a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of Amoi'ica, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you a copy of the returns of 
Logan Township precinct showing the result of the election held therein on 
November 5, 1912, as between candidates upon the State ticket, pertaining to 
certain matters in controversy between said parties, and not depart without 
leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof fail not under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I htive hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 25th 
day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Puhlic, Blaine Co-unty, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires 17th day of January, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, 

Blaine County, ss: 
I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named J. A. Dunn by 
leaving a true and correct copy of the same at his usual place of residence 
on the 26th day of February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
By Chas. M. Kelley, 

His Deputy. 
Fee, 75 cents. 



State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

To E. T. Davis. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 
as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Hereof fail not, under penalty of law. 



CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. * 163 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 
the 24th day of February, 1913. 

[SEAL.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary PuUic, Blaine County, State of OlclaJioma. 
Commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 24th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named E. T. Davis, by 
leaving a true and correct copy of the same at the usual place of residence of 
E. T. Davis, on the 25th day of February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin,- 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, 
By Chas. M. Kelley, 

His Deputy. 
Miles traveled, 25, $2.50 ; fee, $0.75 ; total, $3.25. 



State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To W. E. Thompson. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 
as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Hereof fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of OMahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 24th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named W. E. Thompson, by 
delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 26th day of 
February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of OMahoma, 
By Chas. M. Kelley, 

Miles traveled, IS, $1.80 ; fees, $0.75 ; total, $2.25. 



State or Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 
To George H. Butler. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify as 
a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you copy of the return of the 
Cedar Valley Township precinct election board, showing the results of the , 
election held November 5, 1912, as to candidates upon the State ticket, per- 
taining to certain matters in controversy between said parties, and not depart 
without leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof fail not, under penalty of law. 



164 CAENEY VS. MOKGAN. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Commission expires January 17, 1915. 
State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 24th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named George H. Butler 
by delivering a true and correct copy of the same to the said George H. Butler 
on the 25th day of February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, 
By Chas. M. Kelley, 

His Deputy. 
Miles traveled, 22, $2.20 ; fee, $0.75 ; total, $2.95. 



State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To Feed Strong. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga. county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 27th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clocli a, m., to testify 
as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 
Hereof fai] not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 
the 24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary PuMic, Blaine County, State of OkWioma. 
My commission expires January 17, 1915. 
State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 24th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named Harvey Laughlin, 
delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 26th day of 
February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, 
By Chas. M. Kelley, 

His Deputy. 
Miles traveled, 40, $4; fee, $0.75; total, $4.75. 



State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To Harvey Laughlin. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the uiidersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 
as a witness in. a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Ilepresenta;tives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carn,ey is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 

part of the contestee therein, a,nd bring yith you pertaining to certain 

matters in controversy between said parties, and not depart withou,t leave of the 
undersigned. 

Whereof fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my b,and and official seal this the 
25th day of February, 1913. 

[se;al.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary PuMic, Blavne County, StOite of Okl(ihoma. 

My commission expires 17th day of Ja,nuary, 1915. 



% 

CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 165 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the witlain subpoena on the 24th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named Harry Laughlin, 
by delivering a true and correct copy of the same to him on the 26th day of 
February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, 
By S. L. Bender, 

His Deputy. 
Miles traveled 20, $2 ; fee, $0.75 : total, $2.75. 



State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 
To R. G. Rycroft. 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify 
as a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House 
of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you copy of the returns of the 
East Dixon Township precinct election boai-d showing the result of the election 
held therein on November 5, 1912, as to candidates on the State ticket, pertain- 
ing to certain matters in controversy between said parties, and not depart 
without leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named R. G. Rycroft, 
by delivering a true and correct copy of the same to the said R. G. Rycroft, on 
the 25th day of February, 1913. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, 
By S. L. Bender, 

Sis Deioutti 
Miles traveled, 18, $1.80 ; fee, $0.75 ; total, $2.55. 



State of Oklahoma, 

Oklahoma County, ss: 
To F. A. Knott : 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Kui^tits 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify as 
a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and bring with you copy of the return of the 
West Dixon Township precinct election board showing the results of the elec- 
tion held in said precinct on November 5, 1912, as to candidates on the State 
ticket, pertaining to certain matters in controversy between said parties, and 
not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Whereof fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and official seal this the 24th. 
day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Gbaalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 



166 CABNEY VS. MOKGAN. 

State of Oklahoma, 

Oklahoma Coimty, ss: 
I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1913, and served the same upon the within-named F. A. Knott by deliver- 
ing a true and correct copy of the same to the said F. A. Knott on the 25th day 
of February, 1913. 

Miles traveled, 23, $2.30 ; fee, $0.75 ; total, $3.05. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
By S. L. Bender, 

His Deputy. 



State of Oklahoma, 

Blaine County, ss: 
To William Dyke: 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall, in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at S o'colck a. m., to testify as 
a witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Hereof fail not, under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this the 
24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, 

Blaine County, ss: 
I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
■February. 1913, and served the same upon the within-named William Dyke by 
delivering a true and correct copy of the same to the said William Dyke on the 
25th dav of February, 1913. 

Miles traveled, 14, $1.40 ; fee, $0.75 ; total, $2.15. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
By S. L. -Bender, 

His Deputy. 



State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To W. L. Beals: 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 26th day of February. 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m., to testify as a 
witness in a certain action or contest pendins before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and not depart without leave of the undersigned. 

Hereof fail not under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal this 
the 24th day of February, 1913. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Piiblio, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
February, 1913, and served the same upon the within named W. L. Beals by 



% 

CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 167 

delivering a true and correct copy of the same to the said W. L Beals on the 
25th day of February, 1913. 

Miles traveled, 14, $1.40; fee, $0.75; total, $2.15. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
By S. L. Bender, 

His Deputy. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 
To J. L. French, Sr. : 

You are hereby commanded to appear before the undersigned, at the Knights 
and Ladies of Security Hall in the city of Watonga, county of Blaine State of 
Olvlahoma, on the 26th day of February, 1913, at 8 o'clock a. m.. to testify as a 
witness in a certain action or contest pending before the honorable House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is contestee, on the 
part of the contestee therein, and not depart without leave of the undersigned 

Hereof fail not under penalty of law. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed mv seal this 
the 24th day of February, 1918. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

Commission expires January 17, 1915. 

State of Oklahoma, Blaine County, ss: 

I hereby certify that I received the within subpoena on the 25th day of 
Febru;iry. 1913, and served the same upon the within named J. L. French, sr., 
by delivering a true and correct copy of the same to the said J. L. French sr 
on the 25th day of February, 1913. 
Miles traveled, 24. $2.40 ; fee, $0.75 : total, $3.15. 

Lee a. Akin, 
Sheriff of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 
By S. L. Bender, 

His Deputy. 

I, Theodore Graalman, notary public within and for the county of Blaine, 
State of Oklahoma, do hereby certify that Harvey Laughlin, William Dyke, 
R. I. Temple, George H. Butler, R. G. Rycroft, W. L. Beals, F. A. Knott, A. L. 
Slayton, F. A. Wallen, A. L. Enneu, W. E. Thompson. John McGee, J. C. Dim- 
mett, John B. Lemon, Henry Spreitzer, F. W. Carter, C. E. Albin, J. A. Dunn, 
L. R. Howell, Tom Mosley. W. C. Broady, E. H. Lookabaugh, Seymour Foose, 
and E. R. Taylor, the witnesses whose names are severally subscribed to the 
foregoing deposition and evidence were by me first duly sworn to testify the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the said above entitled 
cause; that the depositions and evidence and testimony given by them, respec- 
tively subscribed, were reduced to writing by R. J. Carroll, a disinterested 
person, in my presence and subscribed by the respective witnesses in my 
presence; that the same was taken on the 26th, 27th. and 28th days of 
February, 1913, between the hours of 8 o'clock a. m. and 6 o'clock p. m. 
of said days at the Knights and Ladies of Security Hall, on the south side of 
Main street, in block 65 of Watonga, city of Watonga, county of Blaine, State 
of Oklahoma, as specified in the notice to take said evidence hereto attached; 
that I caused the testimony of the witnesses, together with the questions pro- 
pounded to them by Porter H. Morgan, one of the attorneys for the contestee, 
and the questions propounded by the Hon. A. L. Emery, attorney for the con- 
testant in said cause, together with the objections offered by said attorneys 
for the respective parties to be reduced to writing in my presence and in the 
presence of said attorney, and to be duly attested by the said witnesses respec- 
tively ; that I am not related to either of the parties in said cause and am not 
attorney for either of tbem, and I am not interested in the result of said action, 
financially or otherwise. 

[seal.] Theodore Graalman, 

Notary Public, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires January 17, 1915. 



1B8 CAEISTEY vs. MORGAN. 

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS, 

The said John J. Carney and his attorneys of record, Giddings and Giddings, 
will take notice that on Monday, March 17, 1913, at the office of E. L. White, 
notary public, in and for the District of Colnmbia, United States of America, 
at the office of the said notary public, in the Pacific Building, No. 622 F street, 
northwest, in the city of Washington, D. C, between the hour of 8 a. m. 
and the hour of 6 p. m. of said day, the said contestee, Dick T. Morgan, will 
take the evidence of the following witnesses, said evidence and depositions 
to be used in the above entitled cause, to wit: Dick T. Morgan, residence, 
Woodward, Okla. Barritt Galloway, residence, Oklahoma City, Okla., and 
other witnesses. The said testimony and depositions and the taking of the 
same will be adjourned and continued from day to day at the same time and 
place before the same officer, and between the same hours until the same are 
completed. 

Dick T. Morgan, 
By Morgan & Detjpree, 

His Attorneys. 

Service of the above notice acknowledged to have been made upon the under- 
signed, and the receipt of a true and correct copy thereof acknowledged to have 
been received by the undersigned this the 10th day of March, 1913. 

Giddings & Giddings, 

Attorneys for Contestant. 



District of Columbia, ss: 

Be it remembered that under and in pursuance of the notice given and served 
in the above-entitled cause, the original of which is attached hereto and re- 
turned as a part hereof, at an examination of witnesses begun and held on 
the 17th day of March, in the year 1913, agreeably to the terms of said notice, 
personally came and appeared before me, E. I, White, a notary public for 
the District of Columbia, residing and acting in that office in said Dis- 
trict, at my office, in the Pacific Building, at No. 622 on F. Street NW., in the 
city of Washington, in said District, the within named Dick T. Morgan and 
Barritt Galloway, who, being produced as witnesses for and on behalf of the 
contestee, Dick T. Morgan, in the above-entitled cause, and being first severally 
and separately duly sworn and cautioned to tell the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth touching matters at issue in the said above-entitled cause, 
did severally and separatedly depose and say as follows: 

Washington, D. C, 
Monday, March 17, 1913 — 2 o'clock p. m. 
Met pursuant to notice at the office of the notary, in the Pacific Building. 
Present : Louis T. Michener, Esq., on behalf of the contestee, Dick T. Morgan ; 
the contestee and witness, Dick T. Morgan ; and the witness, Barritt Galloway. 
No appearance of or on behalf of the contestant. 

Whereupon, DICK T. MORGAN, a witness of lawful age, called by and on 
behalf of the contestee, having been first duly sworn, is examined by — 

Mr. Michener : 

Q. State you name, age, and residence. — A. My name is Dick T. Mbrgan. 
My age is 59. My residence is Woodward, Okla. 

Q. What official position, if any, do you occupy? — A. Since March 4, 1909, I 
have been a Representative in the Congress of the United States from the 
second congressional district. State of Oklahoma, and was reelected to the 
Sixty-third Congress, which term of service began March 4, 1913. 

Q. The election you speak of was in November of last year? — A. The election 
took place the 5th day of November, 1912, and was the general election of tha.t 
year. 

Q. Of what political party were you a candidate then? — 'A. I was the candi- 
date of the Republican Party for Representative in Congress from the said 
district. 

Q. Who were your opponents? — ^A. My Democratic opponent was John J. 
Carney, and the Socialist candidate was P. D. McKenzie. 

Q. What political party had control of the election machinery of your State 
in that election? — ^A. The Democratic Party had control of all the election 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 169 

macliinery at that time and at that election in the State of Oklahoma. The 
governor of the State, who has been a Democrat since the statehood of Okla- 
homa, appoints the State election board, which consists of three persons, a 
majority of whom ai'e Democrats. The State election board appoints all county 
election boards, which consist of three persons, a majority of whom are Demo- 
crats, and a county election board appoints all precinct election boards, which 
consist of three persons, a majority of whom are Democrats. 

The Democrats of the State therefore have full charge and control of the 
entire election machinery of the State, from the State election board that grants 
the certificates of election to all State officers and Representatives in Congress 
down to the county and precinct election boards, which count the votes and 
certify the result from the precincts of the county and from county up to State 
election boards. 

Q. State whether or not you in any way, directly or indirectly, in person or 
through j'our friends, supporters, managers, or assistants, or through any political 
committee or any committeeman, or any other person, made any effort to 
induce negroes to vote at the November election, or encouraged negroes to vote' 
at the November election, or advised negroes to vote at the said election who 
were not qualified to vote under the constitution and the laws of the State of 
Oklahoma. — A. I did not. In the campaign previous to the election on the 
5th of November. 1912, I did not personally advise a single negro to vote or 
nttempt to vote at said election unless he was qualified to vote under the con- 
stitution and the laws of the State of Oklahoma. I did not, directly or indi- 
rectly, through any of my friends, supporters, managers, or assistants, or 
through any political committee or committeeman, or any other person whatso- 
ever, make any effort to secure or induce negroes to vote at said election who 
were not qualifierl to vote under the constitution and laws of the State. As I 
understood the law, the responsibility of determining who were qualified electors 
at said election and who were entitled to vote at said election reste:! entirely 
with the election officers, who had been appointed under the laws of the State, 
and I made no effort whatever v»ath any election officers or officer to induce 
them to permit any person to vote who was not qualified under the constitution 
and laws of the State of Oklnhoma. I did not advise any person or persons 
to encourage, aid, or assist any person in voting or to vote who was not qualified 
to vote under the State law. In fact, in that campaign I paid no attention 
whatever to the matter of aiding or assisting or encouraging in any way any 
person or persons to vote on election day except what I might have, said in a 
general way in public speaking, advising all qualified electors to go to the polls 
and vote; but in no way, shape, or form did I participate in any effort or in 
any attempt to have any person, white or black, vote at said election who was 
not qualified to vote under the State laws. 

Q. State whether or not any negroes voted at that election with your knowl- 
edge and coiasent, or with your approval, or under your advice, who were not 
qualified to vote under the constitution and laws of the State of Oklahoma. — 
A. They did not. If there was a single negro in the second congressional dis- 
trict of the State of Oklahoma at the election of November 5, 1912, voted who 
WMS not qualified to vote under the constitution and laws of the State of Okla- 
homa he did so absolutely without my knowledge, consent, approval, and advice. 
And if there was a single election officer in the district who did not do his full 
duty and enforce the law he did so without my approval, consent, knowledge, or 
connivance. 

Q. In the notice of contest served on you by John J. Carney reference is made 
to what is known as the grandfather clause in your State constitution. Tou may 
state what that is and how it is generally understood. — A. In 1910 the consti- 
tution of the State of Oklahoma was amended, which in effect provided that no 
person should be registered as an elector or be allowed to vote in the State 
■unless he was able to read and write any section of the constitution of the 
State of Oklahoma, with a proviso added to the foregoing that " No person who 
was on January 1, 1S66, or at any time prior thereto entitled to vote under any 
form of government," etc., " shall be denied the right to register to vote because 
of his inability to so read and write a section of the constitution." It is 
generally understood that the latter clause limits the first proposition to apply 
only to negroes, or, in other words, a person whose grandfather voted is entitled 
to vote under the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, notwithstanding the 
fact that he can not read and write. It is generally understood that this 
amendment to the constitution wi'.s intended to prevent negroes who could not 
read and write any section of the constitution of the State from voting. 



170 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

Q. In the notice of contest served on you by the contestant, John J. Carney, 
reference is nuide to an alleged letter that was written by one Homer N. 
Boardman, United States attorney, together with a certain alleged printed 
circular, which was entitled " Talk it over with your wife, Mr. Election 
Official." Please state what knowledge you have, if any, of such alleged letter 
and circular, and state any and all things you know about the printing and 
circulation of said alleged circular, and what, if anything, you had to do with 
the same.— A. I had no knowledge whatever of said alleged" letter purported to 
have been written by Homer N. Boardman, United States attorney, or the 
alleged circular, until some time after the election held on the 5th of November, 
1912. All I know about it now is through some reports that I have read In 
newspapers with reference thereto, and from knowledge I have received from 
the papers in this case. I do not know nersonnlly that any such letter was ever 
written by the said Homer N. Bo;irdm;in. I did not consult with said Board- 
man- about any such letter. He did not write any such letter with my knowl- 
edge, counsel, or advice, and if he worte any such letter it wns not written with 
my approval, advice, or consent. I had no knowledge whatever of the print- 
ing of the alleged circular referred to. The same was not printed with my 
knowledge, consent, or approval, and neither the said alleged letter or the said 
alleged circular were printed or circulated or published in any manner or 
form with my consent, knowledge, approval, or connivance. If such a letter 
was written, published, and circulated, or sent through the mails, or in any 
other way transmitted or delivered to any election officer or to election officers 
in my district, the said printing, circulation, and transmission through the 
mails was entirely and absolutely without my knowledge, consent, or approval. 
Such letter and circular I am sure was not printed or circulated by the com- 
mittee that had my campaign in charge, and so far as I have been able to 
ascertain no person connected in any way with the management, control, and 
direction of my campaign had anything whatever to do with the printing, the 
circulation, and distribution of any such letter or circular. 

Q. What, if anything, did you have to do with the registration of voters in 
the cities of your district? — A. I had nothing whatever to do with the regis- 
tration of voters In the second congressional district. Under the laws of the 
Stnte. as I understand them, in cities of the first class the voters must regis- 
ter in April preceding the election in order to be entitled to vote. No registra- 
tion, however, is required in the country precincts. The registration officers 
in the various cities are appointed by the election board, which in all cases 
in the State at the present time, and at the time of the election in November, 
1912. were under the control of the Democrats of the State. In other words, the 
registration officers in each city, ward, and precinct were Democrats, and, as 
I imderstand the law, had full power to test the qualifications of every voter 
when he applied for registration. If there were any negroes or others who 
were re.glstered prior to the election in 1912 (in November, 1912) who were 
not qualified to vote under the constitution and laws of the State, it was done 
wholly and entirely without my knowledge or consent, and withoat my approval. 
Neither myself nor my friends, nor anyone acting for or in behalf of me, or 
with my knowledge, consent, or approval, made any attempt whatever to get 
any person, white or black, to be registered who was not legally qualified to 
vote. 

Q. Who received the certificate of election as Representative in Congress from 
that district after the election was held last November? — A. The Scale election 
board delivered to me the certificate of election as Representative from the 
second congressional district in the State of Oklahoma in the Sixty-'hird 
Congress, and I delivered the same to the Clerk of the House of Representatives 
in the United States Congress. 

Q. Do you know anything ■v\^hatever about any election officer being intimi- 
dated by the letter or circular referred to in a previous question? — A. I do not 
If any election officer in the second district was in any way intimidated by 
any letter or circular received through the mails or otherwise or by the act 
of any prson or persons, the same was without my knowledge and consent, 
for I in no way was a party to any attempt to influence or control or intimi- 
date anv election officer in the performance of his duty. 

Q. I will ask you if you have read the notice of contest served upon you or 
your attorneys by the contestant, John J. Carney, and if you are familiar with 
the charges and allegations therein made with reference to any fraud, irregu- 
larity, or illegal voting at any and all places throughout the second congres- 
sional district?— A. I am. I have read the copy that was served upon my 



CAKNEY VS. MORGAN. 17 1 

attorneys, and I am familiar with the various allegations and charges made 
therein. I desire to state that if there was a single illegal vote cast in said 
district at the election held on the 5th of November, 1912, the same was cast 
without my knowledge or consent, or connivance or approval. I therefore 
wish to state in general that so far as anything I did was concerned or that 
anything that was done with my approval or consent by anyone in my behalf 
was concerned, there was not a single person cast an illegal vote in that con- 
gressional district at said election. 

Q. You maj^ describe the political machinery that you have in your con- 
gressional district, so far as tbe Republicans are concerned, for conducting your 
congressional campaign. — A. Under the law and custom there is one con- 
gressional committeeman for each county in the congressional district, and 
these various committeemen constitute what is kriown as the congressional 
committee of the district. The committee meets and elects its own chairman, 
secretary, and treasurer. This committee does not get its power from the can- 
didate, and its election is not controlled by the candidate. The committee is 
supposed during the campaign to have general charge of the campaign in behalf 
of the Republican Party for the election of a Republican Congressman from that 
district. 

Q. In the second paragraph of the notice of contest there is set forth whnt 
contestant claims to be the number of votes received by you and by him. Is 
that statement correct? If not, you may state the exact number received by 
each. — A. The information which I have. I have of course obtained from exam- 
ining the returns from the vnrious counties and from reports received from 
the A^arious counties in the congressional district. As I understand, according 
to the count of the State election board, on, the face of the returns I had 663 
plurality vote in the district over the contestant. John J. Carney. However, 
to this should be added 490 votes in Oklahoma County, and 214 votes from 
Blaine County, which were not certified or counted by the State election board, 
and yet to which I was justly entitled. If you add to the 663 votes 490 addi- 
tional votes in Oldahoma County find 214 votes in Blaine County, which were 
cast for me but not counted, it would give me a plurality over John J. Carney 
in the district of 1.367 votes. I am giving this from the information which I 
have, but legal evidence thereof will I presume be placed in the record and 
will be found elsewhere. 

Dick T. Morgan. 

Subscribed and sworn to this 17th day of March. A. D. 1913, before me, 
a notary public in and for the District of Columbia. 

[SEAL.] E. L. White, 

'Notary Public for the District of ColumMa. 

And on the same day and at the same place — 

BARRITT galloway, a witness of lawful age. called by and on behalf 
of the contestee. having been first duly sworn, is examined by — ■ 

Mr. Morgan : 

Q. State your name, age, residence, and occupation. — A. Andrew Barritt 
Galloway, aged 23 years, residence Oklahoma City, Okla. ; occupation, private 
secretary to Representative Dick T. Morgan, from the second Oklahoma district. 

Q You have stated your full name. By what name are you commonly 
known? — A. Barritt Galloway. 

Q. You may state what position, if any. you held in the Republican political 
organization of the second congressional district in the State of Oklahoma in 
the campaign of 1912. — A. I was secretary of the committee. 

Q. Where did the committee have headquarters? — A. In the Baum Building, 
at Oklahoma City. 

Q. As secretary of said committee, you may state what, if anything, you had 
to do with the management, direction, and control of said campaign in behalf 
of the election of Dick T. Morgan as Rtepublican candidate to Congress from 
said district? — A. I will state that Mr. Gus Hadwidger, who was the chairman 
of the committee at the beginning of the campaign, spent something like a week 
at the headquarters, after which he left for his home at Alva, Okla. From 
that time until the close of the campaign I had charge of the headquarters ; 
that the distribution and circulation of all printed matter that was sent out 
from the headquarters went out under my direction ; that the clerks and stenog- 
raphers in the headquarters were under my direction. 



172 CARNEY VS. MORGAjST. 

Q. Who. if anybody, was associated with you at said headquarters in aiding 
and assisting in directing said campaign in behalf of said Dicli T. Morgan? — A. 
Porter H. Morgan. 

Q. What relation is he to Dick T. Morgan? — A. He is a son of Dick T. Morgan. 

Q. Was your relation to the management of said campaign and your knowl- 
edge of what was done by said committee in said headquarters such as would 
enable you to know what campaign matter and all campaign matter and ma- 
terial that was sent out during said campaign from said headquarters? — A. 
It was. 

Q. State what opportunities you had for knowing what matter was mailed 
and distributed in any manner by said congressional committee. — A. I will state 
that I was in the headquarters each day during the campaign; that I had 
knowledge of all matter in the way of publications and pamphlets and letters 
which were distributed or circulated from the headquarters; that I laid out 
the work of such circulation and distribution and directed the sending out of 
such matter. 

Q. I will ask you if you have read the allegation in the notice of contest 
that was ser^^ed in this case by John J. Carney upon Dick T. Morgan, and 
that portion of said notice in which it is alleged that a certain letter was 
written by Homer N. Boardman, United States attorney, and that a certain 
alleged circular was printed which was entitled, " Talk it over with your wife, 
Mr. Election Official," and a charge that said alleged letter and said alleged 
circular was sent to the election officers of the said congressional district with 
the view and purpose of intimidating said election officers aiid thus preventing 
them from enforcing what is kno^m as the "grandfather clause" of the State 
constitution as against negro voters? — ^A. I have read the same. 

Q. You may state whether or hot said alleged letter or any similar letter 
was printed, or circulated, or mailed by the Republican congressional committee 
of the second district of Oklahoma at any time during said campaign prior to 
November 6, 1912. — A No such letter was printed, circulated, or mailed from 
the headquarters under my direction or with my consent or knowledge. 

Q. Do you know whether or not such letter was printed, circulated, or mailed 
by said committee from said headquarters? — A. I know that no such letter was 
printed thei-e or circulated from said headquarters. 

Q. I will ask you to state if the alleged circular entitled " Talk it over with 
your wife, Mr. Election Officer." was printed, mailed, or distributed by the 
Republican congressional committee from said headquarters? — A. No such cir- 
cular was printed, circulated, or mailed from the headquarters of the Repub- 
lican congressional committee of the second district. 

Q. State whether or not the Republican congressional committee had anything 
to do whatever, either with the writing, printing, circulation, or mailing of 
either the said alleged letter referred to or said alleged circular. — A. The com- 
mittee had nothing to do whatever with said letter or circular, to my knowledge. 

Andrew Bakritt Galloway. 

Subscribed and sworn to this 17th day of March, A. D. 1913, before me , 

a notary public in and for the District of Columbia. 

[seal.] E. L. White, 

Notanj Pvdlic for the District of Columbia. 

District of Columbia, ss: 

I. E. L. White, a notary public for the District of Columbia, do hereby certify 
that, in pursuance of the foregoing and annexed notice, the depositions of Dick T. 
Morgan and Barritt Galloway, hereto attached, were taken down in typewriting 
by a clerk by me appointed for that purpose in my presence and in the presence 
of the parties and their agents and attorneys attending as hereinbefore certified, 
from the statements when and as uttered by the respective deponents thereof, 
and were thereuiwn read over and subscribed by the respective deponents thereof 
in my presence. 

I further certify that my fee, amounting to $11. for taking, certifying, and 
returning said depositions have been paid to me by the contestee and that the 
same are .iust and reasonable. 

And I further certify that I am not of counsel for either of the parties to, nor 
in anywise interested in, said cause or the result thereof. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal of 
office this 31st day of March, A. D. 1913. 

[seal.] E. L. White* 

Notary PnWc for the District of Columbia. 



CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 173 

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS. 

Tlie said. John J. Carney and Giddings & Giddings, his attorneys of record, 
will take notice that on the 19th day of March, 1913, at the office of Morgan & 
Deupree, at rooms numbered 421-2-3, American National Bank Building, in 
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, before Mary S. Stotler, 
a notary public iu and for Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, between the 
hours of S o'clock a. m. and 6 o'clock p. m. of said day, the said contestee, 
Dick T. Morgan, will take the evidence of the following-named witnesses, the 
said evidence of the said witnesses to be used in the above-entitled cause, and 
that the taking of the said evidence and depositions will be continued and 
adjourned from day to day between the same hours at the same place and before 
the same officer until the same is completed, the names and addresses and resi- 
dence of the said witnesses being as follows : Porter H. Morgan, 2228 West 
Fourteenth Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma ; W. C. 
Broady, Okeene, Blaine County, State of Oklahoma ; Ben W. Riley, cornel 
Fourth and Walnut Streets, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State of Okla- 
homa; B. O. Young, No. 1011 North Walber Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 
County, State of Oklahoma. 

Dick T. Morgan, Contestee. 
By Morgan & Deupree, 

His Attorneys. 

Service of the above notice acknowledged to have been made upon the under- 
signed and the receipt of a true and correct copy thereof acknowledged to have 
been received by the undersigned this the 17th day of March, 1913. 

Giddings & Giddings, 

Attorneys for Contestant. 
depositions. 

Depositions of witnesses taken to be used in an action pending before the 
honorable House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United 
States of America, wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. Morgan is 
contestee, in pursuance of the notice hereto attached and at the time and place 
therein stated, and the contestant appeared by his attorneys, Giddings & Gid- 
dings, and the contestee appeared by his attorneys, Morgan & Deupree, and 
thereupon the said contestee produced the following witnesses in order, to wit : 

W. G. BROADY, who, being first duly sworn to testify to the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, deposeth and saith in answer to ques- 
tions propounded to him. as follows, to. wit : 

Direct examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. State your name and residence. — A. W. C. Broady, Okeene, Blaine County, 
Okla. 

Q. What, if any, official position did you hold in Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma at the last general State election held in Blaine County, State of 
Oklahoma, on the 5th day of November, 1912?- — A. Member of the county elec- 
tion board. 

Q. Of Blaine County?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Who were the other members of the connty election board of Blaine 
County, State of Oklahoma, at said time? — ^A. Dan Hogan, chairman, and Tom 
Moseley, secretary. 

Q. When, after said election, did the county election board of Blaine County 
meet, and where? — A. At the courthouse on the 5th of November. 

Q. At about what hour?- — A. About 6 o'clock, I suppose. 

Qi In the afternoon? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. When, if at all, did you canvass the returns from the various precincts- 
in Blaine County of the vote cast in said precinct for the various candidates 
upon the State ticket? 

(Objected to by contestant as being incompetent, not the best evidence, the 
laws of the State of Oklahoma requiring that said election board shall keep the 
minutes of this proceeding.) 

A. We canvassed them on the 6th and 7th. 

Q. I will hand you this document and ask you to state what it is. — ^A. It is 
the official count of the returns returned by the precinct inspector of the county 
election board. 

Q. Of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma?— A. Yes, sir. 



174 CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

Q. State fully just wben, by wbom, and by what method that sheet was 
made out. 

(Objected to for the same reason as above; not the best evidence.) 
A. This was made by Mr. Hogan and myself. Moseley was there in the 
office. Mr. Hogan done the pen work and I called off from the tally sheets. 

Q. Now, did you call from the tally sheets or from the returns handed in by 
the inspectors of the various precincts in Blaine County? — A. Well, it was the 
returns the inspectors handed in. 

Q. Did anyone besides yourself do any calling or reading? — A. I called off 
the figures and Mr. Hogan would put them down and he would call them, too, 
to be sure they were the same. 

Q. In whose handwriting are all of the figures in pen on that sheet? — A. Mr. 
Hogan's. 

Q. In whose handwriting are the pencil figures at the right of the pen fig- 
ures? — A. Mr. Hogan's. 

Q. After the figures in pen had been placed upon this sheet, what then was 
done? — A. We taken this to the adding machine and had it figured up. 

Q. And the pencil figures were taken from the adding machine total? — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. In whose handwriting are the words "T. W. Moseley" and the word 
"Blaine" and the figure "29" in the certificate at the bottom of this sheet? — 
A. It looks like Mr. Moseley's. 

Q. Whose signature is this at the bottom? — A. It is Mr. Moseley's. 
Q. Did you see him sign that? — A. Yes, sir; he signed it in the office. 
Q. At the time this sheet was made out were the cross marks at the top of 
the sheet on it? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you to examine carefully the figures on this sheet and will ask 
you to state whether or not this sheet and the figures thereon are in the same 
condition now as they were when placed thereon as you have described be- 
fore and whether or not there have been any changes or alterations made 
thereon? — A. Nothing except these cross marks. 

(Contestant asks the witness to answer the question yes or no.) 
(Comes now the contestee and asks that this sheet be marked " Contestee's 
Exhibit A" by the notary, and contestee now offers the same in evidence and 
asks that the notary make a true and correct and full and complete copy thereof, 
and that the same, certified to by said notary, be attached to the deposition of 
this witness and that it be made a part thereof.) 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not the best evidence, 
the laws of the State of Oklahoma requiring county election boards to keep 
minutes of proceedings and the law further requiring a seal of said county elec- 
tion board, and the purported exhibit having no seal nor any means by which it 
can be identified as the act of said county election board.) 

(Cross-examination. Mr. Dortch, of Giddings and Giddings, counsel for 
contestee. ) 
Q. You are the Republican member of that board, are you not? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. Who is the chairman?— A. Mr. Hogan. 
Q. Who is the secretary? — A. Tom Moseley. 

Q. That board has a seal, has it not? — A. Yes, sir; I think it has. 
Q. Mr. Hogan and Mr. Moseley were indicted by the Federal grand jury, were 
they not, in connection with this? 

(Contestee objects to the question as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, 
and as not the best evidence.) 
A. I think they were. 

Q. Don't you know that they are?— A. Well, I heard they were. 
(Comes now the contestee and moves to strike the question and the answer 
for the rea^son that the same is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.) 
Q. Do yoju know Mr. Homer N. Boardman? — A. Yes, sir. 
Q. What official position does he hold, if any, at this time? 
(Objected to as improper cross-examination.) 
A. He is United States district attorney. 

Q. He is a resident of Blaine County, is he not?— A. He has been a resident 
of Blaine County. I don't know as he is now. 

Q. Did you appear as a witness in the prosecution against Moseley and 
Hogan before the Federal grand jury? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination. • 



CAEISTEY VS. MOEGAN. 175 

A. I was a witness before the grand jury. 

Q. Did you have this exhibit with you [referring to exhibit on table]? — A. 
No, sir. 

Q. Where did you get this exhibit? 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and improper cross- 
examination.) 

A. Where did I get it? Well, I brought it down to this office yesterday. I 
got it from Mr. Boardman. 

Q. State if you know where Mr. Boardman got it? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination. 

A. I don't know where he got it. 

Q. When did you see it before yesterday, and where? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination. 

A. I believe on the 7tla day of November, 1912, when we finished making it. 

Q. What became of it then? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination. 

A. I seen it once afterwards in the county clerk's office in Blaine County. 

Q. For what reason did you get this from Mr. Boardman yesterday? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination. 

A. Well, I happened to go to Mr. Boardman's office yesterday, and he sent it 
down here to be used in taking e^adence. He said he had promised it to Mr. 
Morgan. I didn't even know Mr. Boardman had it until I went to his office. 

Q. What did you go to his office for? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and as 
being improper cross-examination. 

A. I had no particular business, just a friendly call. 

Q. Did you discuss the case against Hogan and Moseley? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination. 

A. No, sir; we didn't discuss the case, merely he told me they had a case 
against them; he didn't discuss the merits of the case. 

Q. Mr. Broady, did you ever see a letter sent to the county attorney of, I 
think, Blaine County, in regard to the validity of the so-called grandfather 
clause, and signed by Homer N. Boardman, United States district attorney? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason that the same is incompetent, irrele- 
vant and immaterial, and improper cross-examination, and for the reason that 
the same is an attempt on the part of the contestant to prove statements and 
allegations contained in contestant's notice of contest. 

A. I never did. 

Q. Did you ever see any copy of this purported letter? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and im- 
proper cross-examination. 

A. No, sir. 

W. C. Broady. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this the 19th day of March, A. D. 1913. 
[seal.] Mary S. Stotler, 

'Notary Public, Oklahoma Coimty. State of Oklahoma. 
My commission expires September 1, 1914. 

Testimony of BEN W. RILEY: 

And thereafter Hon. Ben W. Riley was produced, who, being first sworn to 
tell the tj'uth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, deposeth and saith : 

Direct examination by Mr. Morgan : 

Q. State your name and residence? — A. Ben W. Riley, El Reno, Okla. 

Q. What if any official position do you now and did you hold in the State 
of Oklahoma during the months of November and December, 1912? — A. Sec- 
retary of the State election board. 

Q. Do you still hold this position? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. As such officer, have you in your possession the returns made by the 
county election board of Blaine County, State of Oklahoma, of the result of the 
general election held in the State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, 



176 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

1912, of tlie vote cast for the candiclutes on the State ticket in said Blaine County 
of said day? — A. I have. 

Q. Will you please produce the same? 

( Witness produces. ) 

Q. Is this Instrument which you produce the return made by the county 
election board of Blaine County of the said election? — A. It is. 

Q. Did you ever receive, or did the State election board ever receive, any 
returns of said election for said offices in said county of said election, except 
the one which you have now produced? — A. This is the only one. 

(Comes now the contestee and asks that this instrument be marked " Con- 
testee's Exhibit B," and that a true and correct full and complete copy be 
attached to the deposition of this witness, and the contestee now offers in evi- 
dence said Exhibit B. 

To which the contestant objects as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. 

The contestee now asks that a true and correct copy of said Exhibit B be 
attached to the deposition of this witness and that said copy be certified by 
the notary to be a true and correct copy thereof.) 

Q. Handing you this instrument, I will ask you what it is. — A. The certified 
copy of the official returns from Blaine County. 

Q. Of the results of the election held on November 5, 1912, in said county as 
between candidates on the State ticket? — A. Yes. 

(Contestee now asks that this instrument be marked " Contestee's Exhibit C," 
and now offers the same in evidence. 

Ob.iected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, not the besl" evidence, 
and for the further reason that the original certificate has not been properly 
identified, ?o as to show it to be the return of the county election board of 
Blaine County, the law of the State of Oklahoma requiring that said county 
election board have a seal and that such returns be attested by the seal.) 

Q. Mr. Riley, calling your attention to Exhibits B and C, I will ask you to 
state what, if any, difference there is between Exhibit C and Exhibit B. — A. 
Exhibit C does not contain the tabulated vote on State question No. 40 and 
State Question No. 45. It also does not contain the certificate of D. P. Hogan, 
chairman of the Blaine County election board, and T. W. Moseley, secretary of 
the Blaine County election board. 

Q. By consent of parties Exhibit C not containing or showing the certificate 
of the chairman and secretary of the county election board of Blaine County, 
I will ask you to read to the notary the certificate as it appears on Exhibit B. — 
A. " We, D. P. Hogan as chairman and T. W. ^Moseley as secretary of the 
Blaine County election boaixl. hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a 
true and correct canvas of the vote passed for each political party nominee for 
the various State oflSces and the vote for and against State questions Nos. 40 
and 45 in the county of Blaine at the general election held Tuesday, the 5th day 
of November, A. D. 1912, as shown by the official returns of the various precinct 
election boards in said county. 

" We further certify that there was a total of mutilated challenged 

ballots all of which is now of record in our office. Dated this 6th day of 
November. A. D. 1912. D. P. Hogan, chairman ; T. W. Moseley, secretary." 

Q. With the exceptions to which you have just testified, Exhibit C is the 
same in all particulars as Exhibit B, is it? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Cross-examination : 

Q, Mr. Riley is there any seal of the county election board? — A. The county 
is supposed to have a seal. 

Q. Is there any seal of the Blaine County board on this original certificate? — 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you personally know who made out that certificate there? — A. I don't 
know the signatui'e positive of either men. 

Q. I will ask you if in your opinion the name of D. P. Hogan and the name 
T. W. Moseley are not written in the same handwriting? 

Mr. Morgan. Objected to for the reason the same is incompetent, irrelevant, 
and immaterial, and for the further reason that the witness has not qualified 
as a handwi-iting expert. 

A. I should express my doubt as to their being signed by the same man. 

Q. That being your answer, I will ask you to examine Exhibit B, and state 
whether Hogan or Moseley made the other writings in said certificate? — A. I 
should judge the same man made out the tabulated vote. Whether Hogan made 
it out or Moseley made it out, I am unable to state. 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAlSr. 177 

Q. I will ask you if wlietber in your opinion tlie certificate whicti you have 
just read into the record which contains in writing the names of D. C. Hogan 
and T. W. Moseley is not exactly similar to the alleged signature of D. T. 
Hogan and T. W. Moseley? — ^A. I should judge they were; that would be my 
opinion. 

Redirect examination : 

Q. Mr. Riley, in the matter of the race between John J. Carney and Dick T. 
Morgan, I will ask you whether or not in the casting up of the vote as between 
said parties and arriving at the total vote cast in the second congressional 
district of the State of Oklahoma as between them, you used the figures shown 
by Exhibit B?— A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And in that casting up of the vote did you make any allowance or figure 
in the vote cast in the following precincts in Blaine County. State of Oklahoma, 
to wit : Election precinct No. 6, Cedar Valley Township, and election precinct 
No. 8, Arapaho Township ; election precinct No. 9, East Dickson Township ; 
election precinct No. 10, West Lincoln Township; precinct 12, Logan Town- 
ship, and election precinct No. 13, Flynn Township ; election precinct No. 20, 
Watonga Township ; election precinct No. 23, Canton Township ; election pre- 
cinct No. 28, West Dickson Township ; election precinct No. 29, Carlton Town- 
ship ; and election precinct No. 30, in East Lincoln Township. 

(Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial conclusion; the 
election certificate itself is the best evidence.) 

A. No vote having been returned from those precincts, the boax'd took no 
consideration of them. 

Ben W. Riley. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of March, A. D. 1913. 
[seal.] Mary S. Stotler, 

Notary PuhUc, Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires September 1, 1914. 

And thereupon the further taking of evidence was continued until 1.30 o'clock 
p. m. on the 19th day of March, 1913. 

Testimony of PORTER H. MORGAN: 

And thereupon, at 1.30 o'clock p. m., hearing was resumed, and Porter H. 
Morgan, being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, deposeth and saith : 

Direct examination by Mr. Deupree: 

Q. State vour name and residence. — A. Porter H. Morgan, Oklahoma City, 
Okla. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Dick T. Morgan, contestee in the above-entitled 
cause? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Whfit, if any, relation are you to him? — A. I am his son. 

Q. During the campaign in the fall of 1912, and preceding the general election 
held in the State of Oklahoma on November 5, 3912, what, if any, position did 
you hold in the Republican congressional committee of the second congressional 
district of the State of Oklahoma, and what, if any, part did you take in the 
campaign relative to the candidacy of Dick T. Morgan for election as Congress- 
man in the second congressional district of the State of Oklahoma ? — A. From on 
or about the 20th day of September I was acting chairman of the Republican 
congressional committee in said district and acted as campaign manager for 
Dick T. Morgan, and acted in such capacity until the close of the campaign and 
until the affairs of the committee relative to the conduct of the campaign were 
settled up. 

Q. Handing you a carbon copy of the contestant's notice of contest, I will ask 
you to examine Exhibit B, which is attached to said notice of contest, and will 
ask you if you did, prior to the 5th day of November, 1912, see the original of 
said letter? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you see, prior to the 5th day of November, 1912, or on said day, copies 
thereof which were printed and which have heretofore been introduced in evi- 
dence by the contestant? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you at any time prior to or on the 5th day of November, 1912, see any 
copies of Exhibit B, attached to contestant's notice of contest? — A. As I remem- 

4252—13 12 



178 CARnSTEY VS. MOBGAN. 

ber it, I saw published in a newspaper about the 1st of November, 1912, a copy 
of this letter, but further than that I did not see any copies of the same. 

Q. Are you acquainted with Homer N. Boardman, United States district attox- 
ney for the western district of Oklahoma? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Did you talk with Mr. Boardman, prior to the 5th day of November, 1912, 
or on said day, relative to any letter of the sort shown at Exhibit B of contest- 
ant's notice of contest? — A. I did not. Mr. Boardman was in Lawton in Federal 
court most of the time during the three weeks preceding the 5th day of Novem- 
ber, 1912, and I did not talk with him prior to the day of the election relative to 
this letter or any other letter of that sort. 

Q. Did you or any other members of the committee have anything to do with 
the pi'intiug or circulation of this or anj^ other letters or circulars similar in 
character to Exhibit B, contestant's notice of contest? — ^A. No, sir. 

Q. Was the letter, as shown at contestant's Exhibit B to his notice of contest, 
written with your consent, your knowledge, or with your approbation, or did you 
enter into any conspiracy with anyone to write, have printed and circulated any 
such letter? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you know before the 5th day of November that the letter, a copy of 
which is attached to contestant's notice of contest and marked " Exhibit B," was 
being circulated among or sent to the precinct election officers or circulated 
among them ? — A. No, sir ; I did not. 

Q. Handing you a carbon copy of the contestant's notice of contest, I will 
ask you to examine Exhibit C thereof, and will ask you if you did, prior to the 
5th day of November, 1912, see the original or any copy of said circular? — 
A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you see, prior to the 5th day of November, 1912, or on said day, copies 
thereof which were printed and which have heretofore been introduced in evi- 
dence by the contestant? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Did you at any time prior to or on the 5th daj' of November. 1912, see any 
copies of Exhibit C, which is attached to contestant's notice of contest? — A. I 
saM^ no copy of or original of the circular as shown as Exhibit C until a day or 
two after the election on the 5th day of November, 1912. 

Q. Did you talk with Mr. Homer N. Boardman prior to the 5th day of Novem- 
ber, 1912, or on said day relative to a circular of the sort shown as Exhibit C 
of the contestaiat's notice of contest? — A. I did not. 

Q. Did you or any other member or members of the congressional committee 
have anything to do with the printing or circulation of this or of any other 
circular similar in character to this Exhibit C? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Was this circular as shown as contestant's Exhibit C to his notice of con- 
test written or composed with your consent, knowledge, or approbation, or did 
you enter into any plan or conspiracy with anyone to write, compose, have 
printed, or circulated any such circular? — A. I did not. 

Q. Did you know before the 5th day of November, 1912, or on said date that 
such a circular had been composed, written, printed, or circulated among or 
sent to the precinct election officers in the second congressional district of the 
State of Oklahoma? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Are you one of the attorneys for the contestee, Dick T. Morgan, in this 
cause? — A. Yes; the firm of ^Morgan & Deupree, of which I am a member, are 
attorneys for the contestee, Dick T. Morgan. 

Q. Did you attend the taking of depositions at the office of Giddings & Gid- 
dings for and on behalf of the contestant, John J. Carney, during the month of 
February, 1913? — A. Yes; I was present at the taking of all of the testimony 
which the contestant took relative to the conduct of the election on the 5th day 
of November, 1912, in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, 

Q. How was this evidence taken? — A. On the first morning of the taking of 
the evidence the evidence was taken in shorthand by J. M. Harkins. On the 
reconvening for the purpose of taking testimony after lunch and in the after- 
noon, I objected, as attorney for the contestee, to the taking of the testimony in 
shorthand by the stenographer, unless the evidence was reduced to writing in 
the presence of the witnesses and in the presence of the agents or attorneys of 
the parties and unless the evidence was duly attested by the witness giving the 
same at the time. Upon this objection being made by me there were seven pages 
of testimony taken by Mr. Harkins direct on the machine, these seven pages 
appearing in the testimony following page 39, these pages being numbered, 
respectively, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. At the close of the taking of testimony on page 7 
and just preceding the testimony shown on page 40 of said depositions, Mr. 



CAKISTEY VS. MORGAN. 179 

E. J. Giddings, one of tlie attorneys for the contestant, came in and wanted to 
know what we were doing. Mr. Dortch. who had been conducting the examina- 
tion of the witnesses on behalf of contestant, said : "Mr. Morgan objected to 
taking the testimony in shorthand and we sent and got a machine." And there- 
upon Mr. Giddings said : " Well. I will stop this foolishness." And thereupon 
the reporter subscribed a written oath before the notary, Mary S. Hill, and all 
of the remainder of the evidence respecting the conduct of the election in Okla- 
homa County on the 5th day of November, 1912, was taken down in shorthand 
by Mr. Harkins, and none of the remainder of the evidence and none of the 
testimony of the witnesses thereafter and none of the questions proposed by the 
parties or their agents was reduced to writing in the presence of the notary 
public, Mary S. Hill, nor was it reduced to writing in the presence of the parties 
or their agents, and I was there as agent for and attorney for the contestee, 
Dick T. Morgan, while all the remainder of this evidence was taken, and none 
of the evidence whatever was attested by the witnesses who gave the same. 

Q. Are you an attorney licensed to practice before all courts in the State of 
Oklahoma? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Are you actively engaged in the practice of lao' in the State of Oklahoma 
at this time? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. How long have you been so engaged in the practice of law in the State of 
Oklahoma? — A. About five years. 

Q. Are you familiar with- the laws of the State of Oklahoma relative to elec- 
tions and the holding of elections in the State of Oklahoma? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Are you familiar with the amendment to the constitution of the State 
of Oklahoma which is commonly known as the "grandfather clause," and a 
<?opy of which is attached to tlie contestant's notice of contest and marked 
*' Exhibit A." and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Okla- 
homa on said constitutional amendment? — A. I am. 

Q. I will ask you if you are familiar with tlie case of Atwater i\ Hnssett 
et al., decided by the Supreme Court of the Stnte of Oklahoma on the 26th 
day of October. 10]0. and reported in 111 Pacific Reporter at page 802, and 
Oklahoma Reports. ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you if that decision sets forth the km in this State relative to 
the questions involved in the case? 

(Objected to as incompetent; decision speaks for itself, and any answer of 
the witness must be a conclusion and his own personal opinion.) 

A. Respecting this decision and thMt part of it relating to the validity of the 
amendment to the constitution of the State of Oklahoma commonly referred to 
as the " grandfather clause." this case is the law of the State of Oklahoma. 
I have investigated the decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Okla- 
homa and it has never been overruled by that court and is now and was on 
the 5th day of November. 1912. the law"^ of the State of Oklahoma. The re- 
mainder of the decision upon the other points involved is now and was on the 
6th day of November, 1912. the law of the State of Oklahoma and has not been 
overruled since the decision was handed down. 

(The contestee at this time asks that this decision so reported be marked 
" Contestee's Exhibit D," and that a true and correct, full, and complete copy 
thereof be attached to and made a part of this deposUion. ) 

Q. Will ask you if you are familiar with the case of Ex parte Show, decided 
by the criminal court of appeals of the State of Oklahoma the 3d day of De- 
cember, 1910, and reported in 113 Pacific Reporter at page 1062 and following, 
Oklahoma Reports, ? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you if you have examined the decisions of the Supreme Court 
of the State of Oklahoma and of the criminal court of appeals of the State of 
Oklahoma with a view to ascertaining whether or not this decision in the case 
of Ex parte Show has been overruled or is still a law of the State of Okla- 
homa? — A. I have investigatetl carefully the laws and the decisions of the 
Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma and the criminal court of appeals of 
the State of Oklahoma, and this case Ex parte Show is the law of the State 
of Oklahoma at this time respecting the propositions laid down therein and 
respecting the propositions decided by that case, and there has not been up to 
this time any cases decided by either one of these courts overruling or modify- 
ing the decision made in this case. 

(The said contestee at this time asks that this decsion so reported be marked 
" Contestees' Exhibit E " and that a true and correct, full, and complete copy 
of the same be attached hereto and made a part of this deposition, and let the 



180 CARNEY VS. MORGAIT. 

same, together witli Contestee's Exhibit D hereto attached, be introduced in 
evidence. ) 

PoKTER H. Morgan. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 19th day of March, 1913. 
[SEAX.] Mary S. Stotler, 

Notary Public Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 
My commission expires September 1, 1914. 



State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

I, Mary S. Stotler, a notary public in and for Oklahoma County, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the following tabulated sheet, to which this 
certificate is attached, is a true, correct, full, entire, and complete copy of Ex- 
hibit A, which was introduced in evidence upon the taking of these depositions, 
and is introduced in evidence by the contestee in the taking of these deposi- 
tions or evidence before me on the 19th day of March, 1913, in the case now 
pending before the House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of 
the United States of America wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. 
Morgan is contestee. 

[seal.] • Mary S. Stotler, 

Notary Public Oklahoma County, Okla. 

My commission expires September 1, 1914. 



CAKNEY VS. MOEGAlSr. 



181 



Tfcco ooc«t^oooccci--c-QOt^^a>oioooaioooooc~-i-io^ 



O lO C^ lO lO lO 



4000000T 



>toioioiO!:o<oioioiotoiooioioc<ic^c<»c^wc^c^c^c 



OOOCO OiCl(^a^O^Oi050500iC^O'--^0000'-HOC;t--COOOCOCOt^CX)CCI>-OiCOCOCOCOCOCOCCCO 



scocccococcrococofocococccocococcc 



COt-HiO COCOCOCC^'^'^i^"^'*-^'— 'I— lOOOOOOOOCOCCCOMCOCOCOCCCOCO 
r~iic:i f—i i-H'-H.-H.-Hi-H.-Hi-Hi— ii-H.-HiOiO>OiOLOiOtC'OiCiOi--ti-Hi— «.— (I— li— li— It— (i— li— I 



t^t-Tt* i:0t0:CtD':0cc:C'--0'X>OaC00CCQC00'^00G00000 
C^ CO C*^ Cq C^ C^ (M CN (N C^ C^ CS CO CO CC CO CC CO CO CO CO CO 






i-Ht^iO OOO OOOOO OO t^l 
(N (M (N CM Cq C*4 CM (M C^ CM CS 



• t^i>.t-i:^t-'C-^Tt4'<jt'«4*>^'TiH-<^T^Tt<Tj*osOi05050;)0505a> 



COr-l COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO(NCM(MCSJ(M(N(MCN(M(M wwwwww 



COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO'^COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 



or^-^ cj; oi 05 Oi C5 c 



CO •-( .— I CS CM CM C*^ C^» CM C^ CS CN CO 



O^Oi'^QCCCOCOOOOOOOOCCOOCr^^CO'^'^''f-^'rt*'<t^-^ 



■^ -rt* <Ji 1— I.— (00'-HOOOOC:-X!0:0::C'OtDr-.c:0000:C:aiOiGn)0^aiOSOi05 



iOOCO I0'0»0»0i0i0u^'0t0»000 



OOOOOOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 



i-H (M i-H rt ^r-. ^ ^ ^ ^^ ,-1 ,-1 CO C 



iC^OiCOOOOOOOOOOO 

ICMCMCOr-lf-Hi— I^^i-Ht-H.— I^Hi— I 



>if3L.o»oocctcmoi; 



'•*'^Tt''^TfTt*Tt<-rtiT^CO'^'T''*C0C0C0C0C0CO 



ClCia^OlGCOOQOOOCOOOCiCOOQOOOCMCqC^C^MC^CNC^ 



1005CM CD(^5C<^'^T}^Tt*'^'^*1^0-^J^-^lOr}H':^CMTJ<C0C0CMCMC0'^^(M^MCNr-<CM(M^M(M 
UOC>-(M iOiOOiOiOiOiOir;iO»0(30GOGOC>DOOaOOOOOOOOO(MCMCM(M(MCSCS(MCM.CM 



CiCt^ ooooc;c:iOOOCiaiaio:)Cicoa:iOOoi>-i>-t-t 

i-HCO C^CMC^iMf— 'rHiMCMfM.— iC'JCMCMC^irOCOtMCOCOCO 



- 1^ t^ c- r- r- 



■^0005 "^"^"^'f'^'^-^'t^'T'-^O^C-C^Cl^ClOCSO'. 0:OOOOOOOCOOr-ii-i,-lrHi— ti-Hi-HT-t 



> CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 



?COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO»-H^^i— i,-H,-(.— (i-(^Hi-i 



)io»oio»oiOio*oto;ot--t-i--c--c~-t^t-*r^t 



<CQ(M(M(M(M(M(MCM» 



OOC iOiO»niO*OU7tO»O^OCDOOi— 'OOOOOOOCCOOOOOOOiOOGCOOOOt^CMCM 
TjiCS T^^rj4rt<'*i<rt^'^rJ<':}HTHT}<-rj<-^Tr'*'Tt<T}iTpTj<Tt*CM<M(M(M<M(MCNlMiM<M 



"^OTt< u:>ioou:i'^ou:)ioouoCT>oot--<xoooot^occcco'^'rtiTt*'^-^Tt*rt*Tp-T}iTjH 



(M<M<M(M<M(M(M(M 






•-hoo ooocTioaioci — c-i xot^t^Xit^i-^X/co:oaiascicciooo50'-Hcocococococococo 



■^ tJh -^ CO -^ CO ■^ 



U0u0i0tc»0i0»0»0»0i0'-H'— I'-hCSi—iCMCM'— ii-HC<l 






r-H (M ^ i-H ^ ^ ^ ^ --H ^ 1-H ^ (M CM CM CS <M (M CN (M C 



<C?100C»0000Q0GCO5C;C00r 



I^I>-t^0001C3100iC3^0iOiCJ5?OC050CD( 
CCOCOOCOCOCMClCMCSCMCMCMtM 



: o :C :C O :C cc : 



■ v^ X oC' i^ C)0 00 c/: 



Tt<T}i-(}(-.^'.^T^-^':tin*Tjtcoooooccoooooo 



t^t--cD cr)OOQOGOOOOGOOXGOOOiO"^-^'^'^Tt<-^'^iOCOt-^t^I>.I>-OOl>-l 
COCq CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 



■ l>•l'7^^^^t^QpI>^^^oog^^ClC5alGiC35qlCC)CO 

~"i-t :^"!ro"~" .-« CMCOCOCMCOCMCO^'J'COCM^O 






- - - _ _ - - 1-^ 00 r^ i> t^ r^ 

^cococococococo■^^'*■^•^-4^"^T^■^Tt^ 



COCOCM COCOCOCOCOCO'COCOCOCOTP"^-^-^-r-T'Tr'^-^Tt<CMCMCMCMC^C^3CM!MCMCM 



--CMp^-^OOCMCMC^lCM(MCMC^CMCMCMCMCM04CSCS(NC<ICM 



t^r-^oy:;--ooo:0'r)'^co: 



1 CM CO CM CM CM C 



CM 'q^ .-H C^ CM CM CM C^ CM C^ CM CM CM -^ Tf ^5^ -ft rp -^ Tf TT rr - 



I CO -^ '^ ^ TJH - 



♦Tt^Tj^'i^CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 



COC*^'— <C*^CMCMCMCOCOCOCMCCO'-HCMOlC^COCMt-tO-^'f"^-^Tj^ 

QcoooooooooooO'X. aoccoiOiCioso^aiooicsoi'^'^'^-^-^Tp 



^■^ "^lo 



■^"^lOi— li-(i-(.-H,-(f-(^Hi-l 



■— lOCiO'— t'-HCO'— tcr^iiooccooict^ot 



■CiOCOXicO!r:cDCDOOO:OT 



COCOCMCOCOCOCOCOC004COrOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOClCMCMCMCMCMCSC^C 

■ o o ol 



■ 00 c^ t^ r^ i>- c 



CO CO CO CO COCOCOCOCOCO'^'^* 



:^OOOCCMC^CMC^CMCMCMCMCM<MCMC^CMCSCMCMCMCM 

•'^'^'^'^'^CMCMCMC^CMCMO^CMCMCM 



CCt^OO a0:Ct^t^y:;:O:O:COI^CC'; 



C^XOCi0C^GCCC'C:Ot--O: 



CMCSCMC^ICMCMCMCMCMCM-^':f't*-^iO^TfTj<Tt(T^ 



: :c t^ cDoo 00 t 



1— I C5 a: o o o o o o o o o c; : 



2S'S3l0505aiO0CGCX0000000000000CC<)CMCMCMC<)CSNCM 



CO'*'^ COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO't''^'*'^Tj*-:t''^'<t'^Tt<TP'tI<TjiTt<-^rt<Tt<'^-^Tj< 



»OOOCO 0^iOOiO»OU^O»OLOl--.l---r--l>.t--.OOt^t--OOGCiO»OiOiO»0»Ou?»OiO 



4COCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCMCMCMCMC^CMCMCMCM 



s< 



is 






'^QC c. j: y: - 



^-Zi'S^'^S^^^'-'^'^^'^'^^^'^CriOOCOit^^'Cr-r^COOOi-HCMi— II— iCMCM 



r-<COCO OCcr:OC:CC;C:OO'^C0C0Tj"C0-TtiTtC0C0C0C0cD'^:£:X;'X5CC>:0Ou:> 



S 2 

a?. 



&f4 



c3 M 03 o 

7; 3 «"» 
- q5 » 3 

I— i'^'O t; 

• . I- <^ 

FMO art 



. ^ o ^ r 

•t^ o g o o 

^ C— ! <B » o E 
^ — I OJ - - <u f-i 

" 0^ o a ?„ -« 



tH c3 s ca 






a g 



®;s _ B w 

■S3 : S =3 S 

0:= ■?— c 3 oj'^S'S'S,- 
^ c ^ Ch ^ S f^-2 " t; 3 ~ M 

^ L^ C^-C ^-H--* ^"^ w C^ 4J r,^ rv* .S 



.2t3 > 

:q 05 " 



„.Sa'5sa5SS § 

:::3 o ^ .2 ^ .2 S -^ •'^ '-3 

^.a.gM£.-5gs^S23 
■S:S-iS§^"^mo2^3 

IS«|.%;||||«|;| 



1^2 



CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 






^rT^ '^'wc:^ 



i-rlcCt--' (NCJC^COl^a:>t--I>-t^ .— lOO .— lOOiO OOO r-iI>."cD C^»005 

i-H CS CO ^- -— I r-« CM (M (M CO CO CO T-1 C^ i— i CS CO i-H CO CO i-H (N CO i-H CM CO 



codcco lOcocooicso-^TPTf -oco ■^ a -^ 

rH Tt< I-H ,— I r-( 1— I -^ TP lO 1-H .— ( .— 1 . ^ . 



<t C^ Ca ^ CT CMCO 



•-H i-^ "US ,06. -^ CCCOCOQOGOOO"^-^-^ coco COCCiTt< ^ lO OS "^ CO QO ■^h lO CO CO 



CM CO CS CO 



)t— lC<l.t-^t-t*-cOCDCO OO OOOCO Oi— 4' 



CM .-« i-<T 



CC CO -^ Ol CQ ic 



f-iCS 
CCC^1~ 



CO '— ( CO CO CO ^H ^H .-4 



5 1-t CO T-H 



F-H do 00 CM ,00 00 lo c-i 'r^ 



CQiOiC CDTt<"^OOQOOi-^iOlO CDO GCOl^O Q.O'^ i— iCM^O 



CO CO CO CO CO CO 



CO ■^ CO CO 



oir-io oooooi>.r~-ooiO'^"^ cioo t-oci» 



CM 1-1 1-H CM CO CS rH ^-H ^ r-H ^ ^ 



O OC' "* O) 05 ^ 



CS ^ 1-H CO 1-H I— I CM T-H ,-H CO i-* T^ 



I— 1»— I »OCMOi r-fOlOC'iOtOcOCiO'jOl 

»o o CO u:) Tf TP o o o CO CO CO 



lO O IC O CO 



-* lO 00 c:: CO -^ r-< ^ .— I CO t^ Tt' t:^ o 



lo ceo 
~o6~co"'^-r 



O O '^ CO CT> •* 



CMOOt-t lOi-fCM 



T-H .-H r-» CM CM CM <-H T-H .— I .-H CS T-H CM 1-H ,-( CM T-H CM .— I 1— ( CM CM T^ 



CM CS »0 CM'OO 0505CiI^I~~-t^OOOOOO OOO i— ICOOO O"^00 COOOi CSOlO 



rt< CO T-H T-H 1 



1-H T-H l>- 1-H 'rff 



rt< 1— I -<** CT) CJi CT) CO ■<*< 1^ CO Oi 
lOiOiOt^t^t^CSCMC-l Ot>. 



COiOCS OOOCM CSOlCM 
iOt^CS -(JiOOCM lOOSCM 



OsCil:^ 0i05 0:O0iT-Ht-l^l>. CiO CiOC^ 



< CO 1-H c 



O.Ot^ O O I>- 



I-H iM cor-o 



HThTiih-r'-t--cicio> T*^co thocoi ooioo looocr- csooi 



CO CO CO CO CO CO 



coco CO CO 



1-H 1-H 00^ O 



1 CO -^ lO T-H 1-H 1-H --^ I-H Tf CS CM O OO .— i OSt^i-H 



CO CO CO l>- C-- I>- CO CO CO cot 



t^COCO lOt^CO lOt-CO 



1 Cl CO CO CO Tt^ ^ CO CN 00 I 



^ I-H 00 OiOiO CM '^ t^ 00 CO o 



^COCS Tt^Tj'-^-rtH-^'^CSCMCM Tf-^ ■^■<*HCS '^'^C'l '^■"^CS CO'^CO 



- CO TtH CO »o CO i^ r^ CO ^ rt^ -^ CO r^ lO oc '^ »o o: '^ ic oo Tf 



CS CS CM ^ ^ T 



Csi ^ CM 1-H 



S:2 

ccm" 



OiT-ics i^ioiococo^tJ^i-HOi-H coco iOCOt 



Tjl'-ii-rj^iO'OiOCMCMCM 



T-c CO O Ol CS o 



-* lO CM TfcOCM CO CO CM 



>-H 1-H tOCOOO •^■^'tJhCSCOCSOOOOO tPCS -^CMOO COCSOO CMcOt^ 10CM05 



1-H T-H r-H CM CM CM T-H 



coco OOCMOi ^-COcOCSr-^OOT-ii-i t^T-H iO.CMOi CMOO COCMO O^OCO 



-^ ■* "^ 00 GO OO CO CO CO "* 00 



5 00 CS Tj< 00 CO lO I>» CO 



^H 05 Oi O O 05 CO CO CO CM Cl t-i 00 CO GO cC CO »0 O cO '^ I>- t^ 



^ CO CO CO CO CM 



•rJ<CS rt<CM 



Olt^OO r^ODOOCst-^CSOC'OiOS 
TjH CO tH -^ '^ '^ CO CO •* '^ '* -t* 



'^ CO '^ CO lO 



CO Tt^ 

' corco~o>~ 



CSCS COLOC<) TtHTt<COCOCOl>-COCOCO 
COCOC^I COCOCOCOCOCOCSCMCS 



ro CO CO CO < 



CS 00 -* OS CO Tji 
CO COCS CM CO CO 



O-f-^ OOt^I>-COCOCO'^iC''<*< OS'* OOiOO t^t^CO C3;COCO 



CO Tt< .-H CS CM CM -^ -^ rt< 1-H -H T 



CM -^ <-H CS Tfi ,-H 



-* t-^ ic 

CM -* ^ 



OS 00 ■* 00 OO OO QO CC 00 '^ - 



OOOS OO OS -^ OS 00 "^ 



5 CO CO CO CO CO CS CS CS COCO 



COCOC'l CSCOCM cscoco 



I-H 1-H CO CO 



T-HrH CO'^iO r-CO-^t^OOOSCOCOCO lOi—i -^CSCM COOOi-- OC'CMCM "^OGOC 



■<i-H -^i-^TjH lOCOCO'^COLO'^iC-^ 1-HOO OSiOCO OOSrH OOcOiO CSOSCM 



00 "* I-H UO -rt* -rt^ 1-H ^H ^H CO CO C 



lO O lO O CO 



JCOCO'^'^^CMC-ICS CO^ C0Tt*01 Tt* 



S c^ 



lO O CO 00 CO "* 
CO "* CM CO CO CM 



T-Hi-H OOr^OS OOGOOSCOr^t^t^OOC^ OS.t--. 00,t"-t~* OO.t^D- lOOOOS -^^i-H 



CM CS CM Tt* Tt< Tp 



CM "* CM •* 



CMCM CaosOO Oi-hCSOsiOCOOO 00.00 
CO Tfi -rJH CO CO CO ■'iH '*f "^ "^ '^ "* 



OO C3Si-HaC 00^*00 CMl^OC 



CM LO ^ CM lO "^ 



^ ^ CO ^ ^ 



l>:OtO iO«^CO0CQCt~-iCU0>O lOCO lOCOCC tpiiOcO lO'^I^- 
i-HCOCS i-Hi-Hi-HCOCOCOCSCSCM T-HCO 1-HCOCS T-HCOCM 1-HCOCM 



CO**-^ ■^OCMiOt^OCiC'^Tti icr^ CMOOCO C^lOi'^ coocos os»oo 
COtJ^CS COCOCO-^-^-^CSCMOl CO"^' COtj^CM COTt^CM i^-^CO "^iCCO 



CSCS CO OS O CS O CM 






■^■^ osoC'i-H "^i-HCM-^ioioi-iT-Hi-H T-Hio cmot-h r^toos cocoes 

T— (CMCO i-Hi-Hi-HCOCOCOCOCOi-H T-HCO i-HCOCO I— iC0>O O'n^cO 



r^ coio 

COcOt^ 

occ r^ 



^ 



C3 -„ 



■gww 



CQ CD "l^ -r:; 



2S 






"o 03 






B 03 
o » 



GO£K .o 



^P3 



: PI 






mV, 



S; p. 0^03 S 

C^ t^ '-' o 

PI !- O Xf - 

»i E >- .S » 

> M g W^ 



i^ .— P<o3 

03 i-i Li >< "-^ , ,^J •*^ 1^ 

Jp,5mg(i<pH,ri^b. 

t^ r^ ^ 5 ■>:; 



tec J- 



'ffl 



03 >>o^^ « cT3t^:3g Oo 
'^!^5SF''^"PlS5£eiv'S^2o^ 






£o' 






f^ 



CARNEY VS. MOEaAisr. 183 

We, , as chairman, and T. W. Moseley, as secretary, of the 

Blaine County election board, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a 
true and correct canvass of the vote cast for each political party nominee for 
the various State offices and the vote for and against State questions Nos. 40 
and 45 in the county of Blaine at the general election held Tuesday, the 5th 
day of November, A. D. 1912. as shown by the official returns of the various 
precinct election boards in said county. We further certify that there was a 
total of 29 mutilated challenged ballots, all of which is now of record in our 
office. 

^ — , Chairman. 

T. W. Moseley, Secretary. 

This 5th day of November. A. D. 1912. 

State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

I, Mary S. Stotler, notary public in and for Oklahoma Couaty, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the tabulated statement to which this certifi- 
cate is attached is a full, true, entire, complete, and correct copy of Exhibit B 
introduced in evidence by the contestee in the taking of depositions or evidence 
before me in the case now pending before the House of Representatives of the 
Sixt.v-third Congress of the United States of America, wherein John J. Carney 
is contestant, and Dick T. Morgan is contestee. except that the said tabulated 
statement does not contain the tabulated vote on State question No. 40 and 
State question No. 45, and does not contain or show the certificate of D. P. 
Hogan, chairman of the Blaine County election board, and T. W. Moseley, 
secretary of the Blaine County election board, which said certificate reads, as 
is testified to by Ben W. Riley, on page 9 of said depositions; and I further 
certify that the tabulated statement to which this certificate is attached is a 
true, correct, complete, and entire copy of Exhibit C introduced in evidence by 
the contestee in the taking of depositions or evidence before me in the case now 
pending before the House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of 
the United States of America, wherein John J. Carney is contestant and 
Dick T. Morgan is contestee. 

[seal.] Masy S. Stotlee, 

Notary Public of Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma. 

My commission expires September 1, 1914. 



184 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 



•mojj 



■VLJAOi BSno^BAV. 'IS 



•oioomq: ;sBa: -Qg 



•noiiiBO -62 



•noxiQ ;S9AV '82 



C^t^TO t^ t^ t-- t~ t^ t~ t^ t~ t^ t^ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 C~ TO CO M TO CO TO TO 

^fSS OOCOf^OOCOOOt^t^OOt^-^OJOlcnOOOlQOOOOt^rtOr-I^OOO 

coioiN lo lo lo lo >o lo lo lo lo ira » i« lo lo lo lo ira to lo in (N c<i (N cs S S S 

T-; t^ lo o o o o o o o o o o w t^ t^ r^ r^ t^ i> t^ t^ r^Tt< TjH -^ -(ti *«*^ -^ -^ 

TO.-H TOTOTOTOTOTOTOTOroTO(M(MCM(>40)<N(NSc5c5 

"2; to «3 ^ to lO lO -^ lO ^ »0 *0 ■»*< O CO CD CD O CO O »0 CD CD -^Ji -^ -^ -^ -^ -^ -Hi 

TOTO CO CO TO TOTO TO CO TO TO CO ^ TO CO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ >* 

Ot^Tt* OiCJ050iOiOsa^05030 0OO00OOO0O000O0O0O0OTj<TO'<*<*^Ttl'^'* 

TO T-H 1-H W (N C^ CS C<I C^ C<1 C^l C^ TO T-H T-H r-< ^ T-H ,-H T-^ T-H i-H ,-H i-i ,-H tH r-H i-H r-i rH 

»Oai(N •rJ^-r}1TO"<*^Tt<TtH-<^'«*<''^-»t1 OOiOiOlOsOCJiOlOiCOOOOOOOO 

rH (M rH ^^ ^ i-H 1-* i-H i-H .-( ^ ^ .-( TO (N CNl (M (M TO tM CM C^ CM ^H ^ ^ T-( 1-H i-H i-H 

OtoOO -^ lO lO lO iO UOCD CO lOlO Oi O O O Oi O OSCT) 0iO3 00 OOOOOO 00 00 00 

■*TO ■>»< ^ ■* Til Tt< Tj< ■* ■* -* ■* TO rt( ^ Tj( TO TO TO CO TO TO 

030t>- OOOOOiOSOOOOiOi0500iOOC3000t^I>-t^t^t>-r~-t^ 

■-ITO (M (N CM CM ^ i-l(N CN (M ^ (M (M C<1 CM TOTOIN TOTOTO 

■^ 00 05 Tt^TfTjHTjHTf'^T^TjH-.s^-^oiOiosoiOiOiOiosoiasooooooo 

CO TO TO TO TO TO TO CO CO TO CO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO <— I t-H r-H tH ^ i-H i-H 

00 CO O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOt^cOCOt^r^cOt^t-COCM^HCMCMCMCMCM 

COCDTO lO»0»0»OlOlOlO»OlOCOl>-t~^t^r^t^t^l>.t^t^t^TOTOCOTOTOTOTO 

lOOOO 1010>010>C»01010»OCO O0r-I000000000000000050000 

■^ -^ CM -^ ^ ^ Tji -^ TJH tT -^ TJH Tjl '^i* Tjl TjH -^ Tf Tji -r^ -.Ji TtH TtH CM CM CM CM CM CM CM 

"* O --^ I0i0>0i0'^i0l0^l0l00:>00t^000000t^000000^-^'<*4T4<T*H-^T* 

CMCM C-lCMCMCMCMCMCMCMeqCMrtrtrHrtrt— irtT-lrti-H 

I— lOOl OOOOOOOOSOCM 00cDr^t^00t^t:^00cOcD03aiC3^O05OO 

"TJ^COt—^ "^"^J^Tj^TO-^TO-'J^TO'^-^iOiOUOiOlOiOlOlOlOiOi— II— IrHCMrHCMCM 

t^l>CO 00000000000000000000»O''*lTj<'<^Tj<'i^T}HTt1iOCOt-^t^t^l:^00t^t>- 

TO CM TO TO TOTO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TOTO TOTO TO TO 



■piBM. qif. 'iIjB90 -IZ 



•pj^Ai p8 '^jBao "92 



■piVM. PS 'XJB90 'SS 



•(q:jnos) pB8;saraoH 'K 



•uoiwej -82 



•(IiqsiL4s.ox JeAia -gs 



•pjBAi ;sT 'laB90 -IS 



•(IiqsnAiox'B2no:>BA\. "02 



•SnoT q^iOM -61 



"BJI^JIV '81 



•nojjBinio "ii 



•^Ijaqn -91 



•(qjnos) Snoi -gi 



•noiAi'BT: -^T 



•ini^T^ -gl 



•uBSoq; XT 



•a^ipBn'Bo ■Ti 



•nioonn; ;s9Ai 'OT 



•noxTa ijsBa "6 



•eoqBdBJV '8 



•tLM.o; BSno^'BjVV "i 



01C0-* TOCM 1-lCMCM CM CMTOTOTOCMOTO rt CM CM Cq TOCq i-ICOCOt)< ia<'* -^ Tit 

OO 00 TJH 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 03 05 Ol 05 05 05 Oi Oi C33 OS TJH -^ Tjl TtH T}1 Tl< Ttt 



•iCan'BA •IBP90 -g 



•sna^ -g 



r^OO-* r~t^ t^t^ t^OO f~ t~t^ t^O OOO 0020000CM CMCM CM CMCM CM 

TO TO CM TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO -^ -^ Tjl -«*< Tj* --^ Tjl Tit TjH T^ CM CM CM CM CM CM CM 



•^B9S •?' 



00 t^ 00 00 CD t^ t^ CO CO CD CO CD r^ 00 Oi 05 00 O 00 03 00 00 Ol CD I>. CD CD CO t^ CD 
CM-* CMCMC<lC^lCMCMCMCMCMeM-*-*T}HTt<lOTt<-*Tjf*T}< 



•ju9muo;nBO 'g 



^ OS 05 O O O O O O O O O O OS OS OS OS OS OS OSOS OS OS 00 00 00 0000 00 00 
TO •* -^ TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO ■*! -* ■* Tj* •!}( Tjl ■* ■* ■* Tf( Tf ■* tH •* •* •* i!jl 



•p'B9;s9raoH "2 



lo 00 CO CO to to lO »o u^ »o »o lo »o r^ r^ c^ r^ t-- 00 t^ t^ 00 00 to lo lo lO to uo *o 

^ TO CM r-H .—( i-H i-t i-( .-( r-H rH .-I i-H TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO CO TO CM CM CM CM C^ N Ol 



•nojiBinto 'I 



O CD -If O O O OSOO O O O O 00 OS OS OS OSOS OS OS OS OSCO to to to to to to 
CO ■* CM CO CD CO to CO CO CO CO CD CD Tj* ■* ■* Tfl tj< Tjl -* ■* Tji tH CM CM CM CM CM CM CM 



S >-i 



Sfi 



3 O t^Q 
PhW Ol-I 

+3 -- -fcl Q 
■ o o fl<^ o 



9 2 S 



o d a o tii ^-^ 



>j S S S ?^ " ■ 



OS ».^ fl S CD s^-g 3- 



sS«2 3g'rt.a'3 = g,.s 



S o 9 03 I , 






^^ 0^ ra • • .3 L OJ as ii i^ • 



:.a - - - 

^25 §"3 • 






<!h^ 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 



185 



OO 00 Oi -^ lO CO -^ CO CO -^ Tj< tH CO (N CO 00 Ol -— t 00 o o ^ as 



-^TjHTj^MlMCac^fNSNC^C^CSlC 



C^CO'f t^O'iDOlOOOl'^TP^ OOOl 



''J^ <M O) 1-1 OiOi 



00 I>- CO l>. t-- !>■ t— !>• t^ CO CO CO r^ !>■ C^ t>- CO CO t^ CO 



< t-^CO CO '^ CO 



-OO CO I>-CO CO 



)-^0 CNOi— ir-OOi-HOOO 



CO »0 O -* 00 O I— I rH r-( tJI (M C^ 



LOtN OCOCO»0»JOCOC^(NC<I CDiO CO»OfM CDiOC^ iCt^C<l lOCOCO 









-^-^-^aiOSOJOiOSOiOiOsOiOS 


CO r^-^ 


COi-H(MWt^t^=Oy30 
IM M (N 


OO 

(N rt 


O 00 CO 


O rt Tt< 
tN rt 


ocm-* 


CT>(M lO 


O.O.O. .......... 


Tf^ 00 


(M rH O =0 t^ O 00-00 00 


(N CO 

m rt 


MCO 00 


--H00 00 

m .-H 


C^ 00 00 

m '-H 


m rt 


■*■* Tt( ......... . 


CO lO lO 

mm 


cc^-^j^oooooiTjHo":) 
m m CO m m m 


m -^ 


»o o to 

mm 


o o -^ 
■* m 


rt ca lo 
m ^ 


moo CO 




Ol t^iO 


OlOOOC^t^OOiO-^tf 
(Nm!Mrt-Hrt.-Hrt— 1 


I~-00 
(M rt 


P-OOIO 

(N r-H rt 


ooo ■* 
n ^^ r~^ 


sss 






m rt .-H 






SJ5;^ 


•o<iooocnmTt<i-H-Hrt 


CO t-^ 
rt (M 


-^ l-^O 


2?5S 


(MOOrt 
O) rt rt 






CS O) rt 




lOlM 00 

lom 


OiOiOir^c^t^oooooo 
■^ "^ ^ m m CO 


O 00 


rt CD 00 

lom 


O rt< 00 

>om 


CO O Ol 


(M 0:0 

■^ m .-H 






05 O^ E^ 


T-H ^H .— ( CO oi m 


030 

rt m 


OiO t^ 


T-H m 


COO t^ 

rt m 


§g^ 



CO CO CO CO 



00.-IO iOCq<MCO'*^'— ^— ^ 

o i>- CO CO CO CO r-- t^ r^ CO CO CO 



■^ c^ csi o 00 »-( c::i r-- 1— I t--oo(N 
cot--co r-coco iot>-co lor-co 



00 00 t^(N (M 
CT (N O) 




!^ ; ; I 


iC OSCO 

■* miM 


COCOTj^rtCOtMOOt^t^ 


^5J 


Th rt 00 

^ Tf< Ol 


OlO lO 

■* -^ c-q 


(N ''t* r^ 

■^ Tt< (N 


oomo 
m 'i* m 


^^^ ; : 


•.^ ; 


I i'^ ; ; 


gj2^ 


COOCOt^t^-CO'^Tt.Tf 
(N Ca <M rH rt .-H 


CO t^ 


lOOO ■* 


lOOa-* 
(>) rt 


lOOO Tj< 
IM rt 


CS r-( 


OiOi^^nc^c^ncocococococ^ 


OJrt (>) 


t^Lctocom-^'-HOrt 


com 


WCO rt 


rt m o 


0(M O 


CO Tji (N 



■^lOtN Tt<Tj<TPiOiOiOC<»(NC 



Tj* lO -^ lO Oa ■^ CD (M CO CO <M cocoes 



t^t^t^ CO »0 CO r-H 05 Oi O O C3:> CD CD CO 0^0:^ t-H 00 CO CO CO CO lO O CD 



Tt* CO CO CO CO (N 



Tj< (M rJ*<N 



cotj^io i--.cD-^r*coajcococo lO*-* -^c^csi cocor-c coc;4r- Tt^ooco 

Oi 00 '^ 00 00 00 00 CO 00 Tt< -^ T}^ 00 Oi CO C: -^ a:> CO ^ t^ O -"^t^ 1^- 00 <o 



OJ CN (M CN (M <N tN (N <N (N CS <>» (N 00 '^ ^ lO -^ -^ ^ ^ ^ CO CO C^ 

<M (M (N CO CO (N CO CO CO -^ '^ -^ CO (M C^ 



lO O CO TtH TtH I— I lO O CO 00 CD -^ 
CO -^ C^ -^ C^ <N CO "* CO CO CO CO 



00 r^ C3S 00 CO cjs 00 r^ t^ t^ CO t^ or- oo t- !>■ go h-- r- i£5 55 "^ ^2^ 

(N Tt< C^COCO"*-^"^ C^ Tt< CM -^ (N ^ CO ^ CO Tt* i-H 



/ 00 00 c<» c^ CM CO w CO C4 CO CO CM cooioo o rH CO OS 00 CO CO GO OO OO 25 r:; 



I t>-00 CO t^GO 



CO Tji Tti CO CO CO Tt< -^ -^ -^ -^ -^ CO lO C^ lO Tt< CM lO Tt< CO ■^ TjH CO -^ "^ 



lOiocooooor-o^iO »ccd iococd coco 



lo -^ t— ic r— 'X> 



T-ICOCM .— (I— ir-tCOCOCOC-lCOC^ T-HCO f-HCOCM i— iCOCM rHCOCO i-HCOCM 



CD"^Tt* ■^OCMiOt—COiOTf-^ lOr— C^GOCO OlOiTp cooooa S^2 
CD-^CO CDCDCD-^'^'^COCMCM CDt^ CO'tjiCO CO-^CM .'-^— ^-^ •4^.r^^rt 



-rj< CO rt< lOCO 




-^ ^ -^ 3 *^ O 03 

,ScdSft'=^§:S 

'■O t; S -wQ 5 



Q-S 



^•o 



u g 



oca "^Ki 
fea2^<1-Eg&H'p 



O [i Ph o 

-. CD rt >i m 



o D - 
Bag 

(D JHT3 

IH t- C 

c3 C3 ffl 



' o ■If'::; 



c3,Q M 

O ft.S 
C <" O 

Red O 

go a - 
•S -3 Ml 

o • 8-^ 



186 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

I, Ben W. Riley, secretary of the State election board of the State of Okla- 
homa, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct vote cast for State 
officers in Blaine County, in the State of Oklahoma, at the general election held 
in said State of Oklahoma on the 5th day of November, A. D. 1912, as shown by 
the official returns of the county election board of Blaine County, as now ap- 
pears of record in the office of the State Election Board of the State of Okla- 
homa. 

In testimony whereof I hereunto set my hand and affix the official seal of the 
State election board this the 19th day of March, A. D. 1913. 

[seal.] Ben W. Riley, 

Secretary State Election Board, 

Contestee's Exhibit D. 

atwater v. hassett et al. 

Supreme Court of Oklahoma, October 26, 1910. 

[Sjilal>us by the court.] 

1. Statutes (sec. IIOJ) — Constitutional Law (sees. 6. 9) — Elections (sees. 

7, lOi, 12) — Amendments to Constitution — Initiative — Titles of Stat- 
utes. 

(a) An act entitled 'An act carrying into effect provisions relating to the 
initiative and referendum ; prescribing the method of procedure for submitting 
and voting for proposed amendments to the constitution and other propositions, 
and prescribing the method of appeal from petitions filed or from the ballot 
title; repealing sections 6, 7, and 16 of article 1, chapter 44, of the Session Laws 
of Oklahoma, 1907-S," is not repugnant to section 57 of article 5 of the consti- 
tution. 

(h) Said act is neither repugnant to sections 2 and 3 of article 5 of the con- 
stitution, nor sections 1 and 3 of article 24 of the constitution of this State. 

(c) Section 4a of article 3 of the constitution, an amendment adopted at the 
election on the first Tuesday in August, A. D. 1910, is not invalid for the reason 
that it was submitted at the primary election held " throughout the State " at 
said time, and not at the general election to be held "throughout the State" 
for the election of State officers on the second Tuesday of said year. 

(d) Said section 4a of article 3, supra, is neither repugnant to sections 1 and 
7 of article 3 nor section 6, article 1, or any other provision of the constitution. 

2. Constitutional Law (sees. 206, 274, 215) — Elections (sees. 12, 11) — Equal 

Protection of Laws — Rights and Immunities — Republican Form of 
Government. 

(a) Said section 4a, article 3, constitution, supra, is neither in violation of 
the fourteenth nor the fifteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution. 

(b) Nor is said provision invalid on account of the following provision in 
section 3 of the enabling act : " * * * The constitution shall be republican in 
form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or 
color, and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and 
the principles of the Declaration of Independence." 

[Additional syllabus by editorial staff.] 

8. Constitutional Law (sec. 70) — Encroachment of Judiciary. 

Constitution, article 5. section 58, expressly providing that the legislature 
shall enact laws " for carrying into effect provisions relating to the initiative 
and referendum," courts will not revise such discretionary powers. 

Kane, J., dissenting in part. 

Error from district court, Oklahoma County ; John J. Carney, judge. 

Action between Joseph Atwater and W. T. Hassett and others. From the 
judgment Atwater brings error. Affirmed. 

Wiley Jones for plaintiff in error. C. B. Stuart and W. A. Ledbetter for 
defendants in error. Burford & Burford and Devereux and Hildreth amici 
curiae. 

Williams, J. The following questions are raided: (1) Is section 4a of 
article 3 of the constitution as adopted at the election on the first Tuesday in 
August, A. D. 1910, invalid for the reason that said amendment was submitted 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. M7 

at the primary election held " throughout the State " at said time, and not at 
the general election " tliroughout the State," for the election of State officers 
on the second Tuesdaj' of November, in said year, and was not submitted under 
any valid procedure for the amendment of said constitution? (2) The said 
l)rovision in violation of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendments of the Federal 
Constitution, or section 3 of the enabling act? 

1. Said amendment was submitted by virtue of the act of March 17, 1910 
(Sess. Laws, 1910, pp. 124, 125). This court, in re Slate question No. 10 (110 
Pac, 647) held that said act became effective on the date of its passage and 
approval by the governor. It is urged, however, that the title of said act is 
violative of section 57 of article 5 of the constitution, and for that reason said 
act falls. The title of said act relates primarily to one subject only, namely, 
the " carrying into eft'ect provisions relating to the initiative and referendum " 
(Const., art. 5, sec. 58). By prescribing the method of procedure for submitting 
and voting for amendments to the constitution and other propositions under 
such initiative and referendum powers and a method of appeal from the action 
of the secretary of state relative to the valid title, etc., and repealing sections 
6, 7, 16, of article 1, chapter 44, Session Laws, 1907-8, which were a part 
of the act of that session to " carry into effect the initiative and referendum 
provisions." This title appears not to be repugnant to article 5. section 57, of 
the constitution. (State Ex Rel. v. Hooker, County Judge. 22 Okla., 712, 98 
Pac, 964; Rea, County Clerk r. Board of County Commrs. (recently decided but 
not yet officially reported), 112 Pac, — , 1.) It is 'further urged that said 
amendment is invalid for the reason that it was submitted by virtue of sections 
1, 2, and 4, article 2, of said act (Sess. L;;ws. 1909. p. 124). which provides: 

" Sec. 1. If the legislature should desire to ascertain the sentiment of the 
people upon any proposed amendment to the Constitution, it maj', by concurrent 
resolution, suggest to the citizens of the State such proposition as an amend- 
ment to the constitution. Such resolution should set forth the proposed amend- 
ment in full and should the citizens of the State proceed to initiate such propo- 
sition within one year thereafter, then it shall be the duty of the secretary of 
state when the required petitions have been filed in his office to cause an at- 
tached copy thereof to be filed with the chairman of the State election board, 
together with a certificate of the fact that the proposition was originated by 
concurrent resolution of the legislature setting forth such resolution. 

" Sec. 2. All propositions first suggested to the people by the legislature, as 
provided by section 1 of this article, shall be printed by such election board, 
and they shall have the supervision of the printing of the ballots for such pro- 
posed amendment, and such proposition shall be printed either on a separate 
and independent ballot or upon the ballot upon which the names of candidates 
appear, should such election occur upon the day when candidates are being 
voted for : Provided, however. That the State election board shall not be em- 
powered to change the form of any ballot as prescribed by the legislature. 
Should such title be printed upon ballots containing the names of candidates 
such boai'd shall cause such proposition to appear immediately following 
the names of such candidates. If separate ballots are used at such election for 
county candidates, only local propositions can be printed thereon. All State- 
wide or district propositions shall be printed only upon the State ballots. 
Such election board shall cause the said title of each proposition to be printed, 
followed by the words " For the amendment," which words shall be in a 
separate paragraph and at least one-fourth of an inch below such title. Said 
words shall have no distinguishing marks about them." 

" Sec 4. Electors shall vote upon all propositions submitted under the pro- 
visions of this act, and which were first suggested by concurrent resolution of 
the legislature, in the following manner : Should the elector desire to vote for 
the proposed amendment he shall leave the words ' For the amendment,' intact 
without ei'asing same. But should he desire to vote against such proposition 
he shall strike out the words, ' For the amendment.' with a pencil mark. When 
such words are so erased after any proposition, the ballot shall be recorded as 
having been cast against the same, and whenever they are not so erased, such 
ballot shall be recorded as having been voted for such proposition." 

Section 3 of article 5 of the constitution provides : "All elections on measures 
referred to the people of the State shall be had at the next election held through- 
out the State, except when the legislature or the governor shall order a special 
election for the express purpose of making such reference." 

Section 1. article 3. page 270, Session Laws, 1909, provides : " Whenever any 
measure shall be initiated by the people in the manner provided by law, or 



188 CAEISTEY VS. MOKGAIST. 

whenever the referendum shall be demanded against any measure passed by 
the legislature, the governor shall have the power, in his discretion, to call a 
special election to vote upon such question." 

Section 1 of article 24 of the constitution provides : "Any amendment or 
amendments to this constitution may be proposed in either branch of the legis- 
lature, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members 
elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments 
shall, with the yeas and nays thereon, be entered in their journals and referred 
by the secretary of state to the people for their approval or rejection at the next 
regular general election, except when the legislature, by two-thirds vote of eacL 
house, shall order a special election for that purpose. If a majority of all the 
electors voting at such election shall vote in favor of any amendment thereto, 
it shall thereby become a part of this constitution. If two or more amendments 
are proposed they shall be submitted in such manner that electors may vote 
for or against them separately." 

Section 3 of article 24 provides : " This article shall not impair this right of 
the people to amend this constitution by a vote upon an initiative petition 
therefor." 

This amendment not having been submitted by virtue of section 1, article 24, 
supra, the same has no application to this case. Said amendment was sub- 
mitted on an initiative petition. Under section 3, article 5, constitution, said 
amendment was required to be submitted " at the next election held throughout 
the State." Further, the governor issued his proclamation calling an election 
for said date at which said proposed amendment was to be submitted. 

It has been time and again held by this court that the initiative and referen- 
dum provisions as contained in the constitution of this State were not self- 
explanatory. (Ex parte Wagner, 21 Okla., 33, 95 Pac, 435 ; Norris et al. v. Cross, 
25 Okla., 287, 105 Pac, 1000; Threadgill et al. v. Cross, 109 Pac, 558; In re 
Initiative State Question No. 10, 110 Pac, 647.) Was said amendment sub- 
mitted in a manner contrary to some provision of our constitution? It was pro- 
vided that there should be printed upon the ballot, " For the amendment," and 
those desiring to vote in favor of the amendment should vote the ballot in that 
form, and those desiring to vote against it should strike out the words, " For 
the amendment," with a pencil mark. Section 7 of article 3 of the constitution 
provides that elections in this State " shall be free and equal." A similar pro- 
vision was contained in the constitution of Pennsylvania (Const., 1838, art. 9, 
sec. 5 ; Const, 1873, art. 1, sec. 5 ; Oregon, Const., 1857, art. 2, sec. 1 ; and Illinois, 
Const.. 1870, art. 2, sec. 18.) 

In Patterson v. Barlow (60 Pa., 54) it is said: "The constitution appoints 
the time of the general election, prescribes the qualifications of voters, and 
enjoins the ballot ; and for the rest the law must provide. * * * Then that 
election is free and equal where all the qualified electors of the precinct are 
carefully distinguished from the unqualified, and are protected in the right to 
deposit their ballots in safety, and unprejudiced by fraud." At nisi prius Judge 
Sharswood (60 Pa., at page 63) said: "I propose to consider what was meant 
both by the freedom and the equality of elections, and then apply the declara- 
tion of the constitution as thus interpreted to the act of assembly, the validity 
of which is now brought in question. By declaring that elections shall be 
equal, I think that it was evidently intended to provide that the regulations for 
conducting them should be uniform, and that no distinctions, especially as to 
the evidence I'equired to prove the elective franchise, should ever be made be- 
tween one class of citizens and another — between those residing in one place and 
those residing in another. If equality of elections does not mean this, it means 
nothing." This identical language is quoted with approval in Grinnell v. Hoff- 
man (116 111., 587; 5 N. E., 596; 8 N. E'., 788; 56 Am. Rep.. 793). 

In De Walt v. Bartley (146 Pa. 529, 24 Atl. 185, 15 L. R. A. 771, 28 A. M. St. 
Rep. 814), Chief Justice Paxson, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the 
court, said; "The act provides for a secret ballot. That is manifestly its main 
purpose, and it is in entire harmony with article 1, section 5, constitution, 
which declares that ' elections shall be free and equal '. This means that every 
citizen shall have an equal right to cast a free ballot. This is the letter of the 
constitution, and it is a right which no legislature can interfere with. The 
spirit of the constitution requires that each voter shall be permitted to cast a 
free and unintimidated ballot. This the act of 1891 was intended to secure. 
An election, to be free, must be without coercion of every description. An elec- 
tion may be held in strict accordance with every legal requirement as to form, 
yet If, in point of fact, the voter casts the ballot as the result of intimidation; 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 189 

If he is deterred from the exercise of his free will by means of any influence 
whatever, although there be neither violence nor physical coercion, it is not a 
free and equal election within the spirit of the constitution. The framers of 
the act in question have evidently reached the conclusion that the only adequate 
guaranty of free and equal elections, within the letter and spirit of the con- 
stitution, is absolute secrecy. They therefore have provided a secret ballot." 

In State ex rel v. Richardson (48 Or. 309, 85 Pac. 225, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
362), it is said: " It is maintained that the act under consideration is violative 
of section 1, article 2, of the organic law of the State, which is as follows: 'All 
elections shall be free and equal.' No qualified elector was prevented by any 
means whatever, so far as disclosed by the transcript, from freely voting to 
adopt or reject the local-option law, or deprived of having his vote counted as 
cast, and, if he exercised the right of suffrage on this particular occasion, his 
opportunity was equal to that of all other persons voting, and hence the act 
does not contravene the clause of the constitution invoked to defeat it. (10 
Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d ed.) 583)". 

This identical question seems to have been passed upon by the Supreme Court 
of Alabama, which had substantially the same constitutional provision as ex- 
isted in Oklahoma. Section 2 of article 1 of the Alabama constitution of 
1875 provides : " That all persons resident of this State, born in the United 
States, or naturalized, or who shall have legally declared their intention to 
become citizens of the United States, are hereby declared citizens of the State 
of Alabama, possessing equal civil and political rights." Section 38 of the same 
article further provides: "No educational or property qualification for suffrage 
or office, nor any restraint upon the same, on account of race, color, or pre- 
vious condition of servitude, shall be made by law." Section 1, article 17, 
provides: "The general assembly may, whenever two-thirds of each house 
shall deem it necessary, propose amendments to this constitution, which, hav- 
ing been read three times on three successive days, shall be duly published, in 
such manner as the general assembly may direct, at least three months before 
the next general election for representatives, for the consideration of the peo- 
ple; and it shall be the duty of the several returning officers, at the next gen- 
eral election which shall be held for representatives, to open a poll for the vote 
of the qualified electors on the proposed amendments, and to make a return of 
said vote to the secretary of State; and if it shall thereupon appear that a 
majority of all the qualified electors of the State, who voted for representa- 
tives, voted in favor of the proposed amendments, said amendments shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as parts of this constitution, and the results 
of such election shall be made known by proclamation of the governor." 

In May & Thomas Hardware Co. i'. Mayor, etc., of Birmingham, (123 Ala., 
306, 26 South, 587), the late Chief Justice McClellan, in delivering the unani- 
mous opinion of the court, said, after having quoted at length section 1, 
article 17 : 

" Under and in supposed conformity to this organic provision, the general 
assembly of 1896-97 passed 'An act to submit to the people of the State at the 
general election to be held on the first Monday in August, 1898, for representa- 
tives, for their consideration, an amendment to section 7, article 11 of the con- 
stitution, providing a special tax of one-half of 1 per centum for the city of 
Birmingham, to be applied to the payment of interest on the bonds of said city, 
and for a sinking fund to pay off said bonds at the maturity thereof.' (Laws 
1896-7, p. 1202.) * * * 

" The position of the appellant, as we understand it, is that section 3 of the 
act is unconstitutional and void, and that, of consequence, the amendment de- 
clared to have been adopted at the election held under it is likewise void, for 
that: First, that section violates the spirit and purpose of section 1 of article 
17 of the constitution, quoted above, which requires to the validity of an amend- 
ment that a majority of all the qualified voters voting at the election shall 
vote in favor of the proposed amendment ; and, second, that the statute, or 
rather said section 3 thereof, is violative of section 1 of article 8 of the consti- 
tution, which prescribes the ' qualifications of electors, and guarantees to every 
citizen possessing the prescribed qualifications the right to vote at every election 
by the people.' And the argument in support of the first proposition is, in the 
brief of appellant's counsel, thus epitomized: '(a) Under the provisions of the 
statute, the amendment might be declared adopted, although a majority of all 
the qualified voters of the State who voted at the election had no intention, 
when they voted for State and county officers, to vote upon the proposed amend- 
ment, or did not manifest any intention to vote for the amendment, or desired to 



190 CAI^I^^EY VS. MORGAN. 

refrain from voting on the proposition. (&) The provisions of the statute 
render it impossible to ascertain with certainty whether a majority of all the 
electors of the State who voted at the election actually and affirmatively voted 
for the amendment, within the spirit and meaning of the constitution, (c) The 
constitution requires positive, affirmative acton on the part of the elector to 
manifest an intention to vote in favor of the amendment, and no action to 
manifest an intention to vote against it. This statute requires positive, affirma- 
tive action on the part of the elector to manifest an intention to vote against 
the amendment, and no affirmative action to manifest an intention to vote in 
favor of it. (4) The constitution presumes that every elector who votes for 
any State or county officer at the election, but fails to vote, or for any reason 
refrains from voting, on the proposition to amend, is against the amendment, 
and, in effect, requires his ballot for State and county officers to be counted as a 
vote Mg;^,iust the amendment. This statute assumes that every elector who does 
not wish to vote directly against the amendment by strilving out the words, " For 
Birmingham amendment," will vote in favor of it, and requires his ballot to be 
counted in favor of the amendment, although he may have had no intention to 
vote in favor of it, or any knowledge that any such proposition was pending to 
be voted on.' 

" It may well be assumed that the foregoing skeleton of counsel's argument 
presents every consideration worthj' of attention against the validity of this 
statute, under section 1 of article 17 of the constitution. Certainly no other 
plausible objection to its integrity occurs to us; and, upon the positions taken 
by them, we will consider this part of the case. In the outset it is, of course, 
to be admitted that it is essential to the adoption of any proposed amendment 
to the constitution that a majority of the electors voting at the election at which 
the proposition is submitted should vote for the amendment. That is the plain 
requirement of the organic law ; and, of course, any statute which undertook 
to provide for the adoption of such an amendment upon a less number of favor- 
ing votes than a majority of those so voting, or which made it possible, in legal 
contemplation, for the amendment to rest upon the favoring votes of a minority 
of the electors so voting, would be violative of the constitution and void. It is 
further to be taken for granted that a vote for a proposition necessarily im- 
plied the expression of the voter's opinion, position, or preference in favor of 
or for that proposition; and a statute which authorizes or admits of thecoimt- 
ing for a proposed amendment to the constitution a ballot which does not in- 
volve, directly, or by necessary implication, such expression favorable thereto, 
would be invalid and of no effect. And so the inquiry in this connection is 
whether this statute authorizes or admits of the counting for this amendment 
of ballots which can be said not to evidence the voters' predilection for and 
intention to support the amendment, or rather, which can not be said to mani- 
fest such predilection and intention. We do not think the enactment authorizes 
or admits of any such thing. Every voter is presumed to know what is on any 
ballot he deposits as an expression of his will upon men and measures sub- 
hiitted for his consideration and action as an elector. Every voter who can 
read does know what his ballot contains. And the law furnishes the illiterate 
voter with easy and convenient means of information as to what his ballot con- 
tains, and, when he deposits it, the presumption of law is that he, as well as 
his educated fellow elector, knows what is upon it and has expressed the desire 
as between candidates and upon propositions which the paper indicates. This 
presumption of law is absolutely essential to popular government. The pre- 
sumption is indulged, because every practical means has been resorted to to 
acquaint the voter with the contents of his ballot, and he, in fact, does know 
its contents. If the fact were otherwise, the presumption could not exist, and 
government by ballot would be impossible. Until within a few years past it 
was, and for long had been, under the present and former constitutions, the law 
and practice for the names of only a certain set of candidates, the nominees 
of a political party, to appear upon a ballot. The voter who deposited such a 
ballot without erasing any of the names upon it thereby expressed his choice 
of all the persons whose names so appeared. If he wished not to vote for any 
person on the ticket he could do so only by striking out that name. If he 
wished to vote for a person for a particular office whose name did not appear 
on the ballot, he would have to strike out the candidate for that office whose 
name did appear, and substitute the name of the person of his choice. If he 
erased no name he was conclusively presumed to have voted for every person 
on the list. Or, when there has been no party nominations, and all candidates 
for a given office appeared on the same ballot, as frequently occurred, the voter 



CAKISTEY VS. MOEGAN. ' 191 

had to erase the names of all the candidates except the one for whom he 
intended to vote ; and, if he left all the names on the ballot, he was held to 
have voted for the person whose name first appeared thereon ; and, that all 
candidates might have equal advantage in view of the law on this point, it 
was the custom to give priority on the ballot to each on an equal number of 
tickets, so that if A B and Y Z were candidates for an office, and 1,000 tickets 
were printed, the name of A B would appear first on 500 tickets, and that 
Y Z would appear first on the remaining 500. And, where there was a party 
ticket, and no erasure upon it, the conclusive presumption of law was that the 
voter intended to vote for every person whose name appeared to fill the olfice 
for which he was a candidate, as indicated by the ticket ; or, in other words, 
that he knew all that the ticket contained, and adopted it as the expression 
of his views, and there was really never any question of fact as to whether 
such tickets actually represented the intent of the voters — they always did. So 
where the names of two or more candidates for the same office appeared, and 
there was no erasure, the law held the voter to a knowledge that, imder the 
law, the first-named person would be credited with having received his A^ote; 
and while, as we have seen, there was some notion abroad, under this provi- 
sion of law and the practice, that in such case the person first named might 
be credited with votes which were not intended to be cast for him, or for the 
office at all, leading to the alternation of names through a series of tickets, yet 
it was never seriously questioned that such a ballot represented in point of 
fact the afiirmative choice of the voter for the first-named candidate. And 
such was the necessary and conclusive presumption of law based upon sub- 
stantial uniformity of fact. Affirmative manifestation of the voter's intent 
was as essential then as it is now: and it was then, and is now, as essential in 
respect of the election of officers as it was then, and is now, in respect of propo- 
sitions submitted to the electors. And it was then, and has always been, held 
that the necessary affirmative manifestation of intent is that manifestation 
which appears on the words of the ballot which the voter deposits, even when 
those Avords take on a peculiar meaning from their collocation by sheer force 
of a statute of which the voter might be entirely ignorant ; and all this, regard- 
less of the voter's illiteracy. How much stronger, then, and more fully justi- 
fied, is the presumption when a voter casts a ballot upon which is printed 
the information that an amendment to the constitution is to be voted upon, 
and that, if he deposits that ballot as it is, he expresses his favor for the 
amendment, when, to state this case, there is printed on the official ballot the 
words, " For Birmingham amendment " — hoAV much nearer to absolute cer- 
tainty is the implication that when the voter casts the ballot he intends it as 
an affirmative expression of his will, and that it is an affirmative manifestation 
of his purpose to support and favor the amendment? And this is all the con- 
stitution in respect of the adoption of such amendments requires: That the 
voter shall vote for the amendment; that he shall favor the adoption of the 
amendment ; and that he shall deposit a ballot which on its face, assuming 
knowledge on his part of its contents, evidences his wish that the proposed 
amendment should become part of the organic law. And so, indulging this 
presumption, because it is justified by the facts and is a sine qua non to govern- 
ment by the people, there is no difficulty in ascertaining with the same certainty 
that has always sufficed in elections whether a majority of the voters voting 
at the election provided for in this act ' actually and affirmatively voted for 
the amendment, within the spirit and meaning of the constitution.' Since the 
result is to be arrived at by counting for the amendment all the ballots which 
have the words, ' For Birmingham amendment,' intact upon them, and against 
it all those ballots from which those words have been erased, there is no 
danger of the adoption of the amendment being declared, although a majority 
of the voters had no intention to vote on or for the amendment : but to the con- 
trary, the ballots themselves conclusively evidence that manifestation of the 
voters' intention which the constitution requires. And this is all that the con- 
stitution does require — a majority of the votes cast at that election for the 
amendment. When there is such majority shown by affirmative ballots, the 
constitution is not concerned about the minority. If that minority desired not 
to vote at all on the proposition, and so to be counted against it, the fact that 
mider this act they had to vote one way or the other, had either to strike oft 
the amendment and so vote against it, or to leave it on and so vote for it, does 
not destroy the integrity of the majority of the whole vote at that election who 
have in legar contemplation affirmatively expressed their favor for the amend- 
ment. The whole argument for appellant on this part of the case, it seems to 



192 CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

US, is at fault, in assuming that tile casting of a ballot upon wliicli are printed 
the words, ' For Birmingham amendment,' is not affirmative action on the part 
of the A^oter in favor of the amendment. That assumption being eliminated, 
the argument falls to the ground, and the conclusion we are asked, in this 
connection to draw against the law, has nothing to rest upon. 

"As part and in conclusion of our discussion of the case in this connection, 
we adopt an opinion upon it prepared by Judge R. W. Walker, at the instance 
of appellee's counsel. After stating the provisions of section 3 of the act, he 
says: 'The question submitted is — is there anything in the constitution of 
Alabama which prohibited the legislature from making the regulation contained 
in said section in respect of the preparation of the ballot and the manner of 
voting? In other words, was it competent for the legislature to prescribe that 
the words, " For Birmingham amendment," should be printed on the official 
ballots, and to declare that the leaving of said words upon the ballot shall be 
taken as a favorable vote, and the erasure or striking out of said words shall 
be taken as an adverse vote upon said amendment? The extent of the require- 
ments of the constitution of Alabama touching the method of voting upon a 
proposed amendment of that instrument is the provision that all elections by 
the people shall be by ballot and the provision for the opening of a poll for 
the vote of the qualified electors on the proposed amendment. These two pro- 
visions together amount simply to a requirement that a proposed amendment 
shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the State for their vote upon 
it by ballot. The constitution expressly remits to the general assembly the 
matter of regulating and governing elections by laws which are required to 
be uniform throughout the State. It can not be doubted that the form of the 
ballot and the method of indicating the voter's choice are matters for legisla- 
tive regulation. Of course it would not be competent for the legislature, under 
the gurse of regulations, to effect a practical denial of the free exercise of the 
elective franchise. But there can be no question of a regulation, really amount- 
ing to a deprivation, of the right to vote where the meaning of what is put 
upon the ballot required to be used by the voter is plain to a common under- 
standing and the method prescribed for the indication of his choice by the voter 
is easy to be comprehended and not difficult to be followed. It is certainly not 
unreasonable to assume that the voter is to inform himself of the contents of 
the ballot he casts where the meaning is obvious to one who can read and 
could not be misunderstood by an illiterate voter who seeks information as to 
what is upon the ballot put into his hands. The words. " For Birmingham 
amendment," printed in a conspicuous place upon the ballot in question, 
plainly indicate a choice in favor of the amendment. A voter casting a ballot 
known to have these words upon it must have understood that he was thereby 
expressing himself in favor of the amendment. If he wished to vote against 
the proposed amendment, all that was required was the erasure or striking out 
with pen or pencil of those words. The method prescribed by the statute for 
the voter indicating his choice to vote for or against the amendment was 
simplicity itself, and though that method varied from the one adopted in 
the recently enacted general election law, yet it was a method by no means 
unfamiliar to the electors of the State. As to the method of voting on this 
amendment, the legislature simply revived the old way, familiar to the people 
of casting an adverse vote, by " scratching the ticket." It seems that any sug- 
gestion against the validity of the provision in question must be based upon 
the assumption that it was not competent for the legislature to make a pro- 
vision in deference to the ballot which involves the possibility of a vote in 
favor of a person or proposition being the result of the voter's deliberate or 
negligent failure to inform himself of the contents of the ballot he casts and of 
the method prescribed by law for the indication of his choice. Any such 
assumption I regard as wholly unwarranted. Where the method of indicating 
his choice the one way or the other is plain and simple, the provision on the 
subject can not be rendered invalid by the mere possibility that, as the result 
of the carelessness of the voter, his act in casting his ballot may have an effect 
not actually contemplated by him.' 

"And so we conclude that the first objection to the act relied on, as stated in 
the beginning of this opinion by appellant's counsel, is untenable and unavailing. 

" Of the second ground of objection to the act above stated little, we think, 
need be said. It is, to repeat, that ' the statute violates section 1 of article S 
of the constitution, which fixes the qualifications of voters, and guarantees to 
every citizen possessing these qualifications the right to vote at every election 
by the people.' And the argument is that, inasmuch as the constitution does not 



CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 193 

i ' : ■ ' ' , • 

require the elector to vote upon all offices to be filled at an election, but only 
in respect of such as he desires, and that, as is insisted, the same principle 
obtains in respect of an amendment, so that the organic law contemplates that 
an elector voting for candidates for office may refrain from voting for amend- 
ments, this statute adds an additional qualification, in that it requires him to 
vote on this amendment as a necessary incident to his vote of offices, or, as said 
by counsel : ' The statute takes away from the elector his right, recognized by the 
constitution, to refrain from voting on the amendment, and at the same time 
to vote for the State and county offices to be filled at the election.' This position 
takes no account of the consideration that under any possible form of sub- 
mitting a proposed amendment to the people, every elector who votes for a 
State or county office at the election must, through the operation of the consti- 
tution itself, in effect, vote for or against the amendment. Article 17, section 
1, provides, as we have seen, that an amendment must receive ' a majority of 
all the qualified electors of the State who vote at a general election to which it 
Is submitted' — a majority, not of those who vote on the amendment, but of 
those who deposit ballots for any purpose. Hence it is that if an elector votes 
for a State or county office, he necessarily votes on the amendment, for, though 
his ballot contains no reference to the amendment, he is counted against it. 
So that by the terms of the constitution itself he is deprived of the right to 
refrain from voting on an amendment if he votes for any State or county 
office ; and the statute can not be violative of the constitution for having this 
same operation and effect. The most that can be said of the statute in this 
connection is that under it it is easier for the elector to vote for the amend- 
ment than against it, in that to vote against it he is put to the physical exer- 
tion of drawing a pen or pencil through the words ' For Birmingham amend- 
ment,' and he may vote for it without doing this; and of this it is sufficient to 
say that such regulations have been several times, and we think correctly, 
held valid." 

(See also Cook v. State, 90 Tenn. 407, 16 S. W. 471, 13 L. R. A. 183; Ransom 
V. Black, 54 N. J. Law. 446. 24 Atl. 489, 16 L. R. A., 769 ; Ritchie v. Richards, 
14 Utah 345, 47 Pac. 670.) 

What is the difference between where the names of the nominees of a polit- 
ical party are placed upon a ballot, all of whom are to be voted for by placing 
a cross in the circle under the emblem and the case at bar? The party that 
does not desire to vote a straight party ticket is required to place a cross in 
the square opposite the name of each person he desires to vote for. If the 
ballot form prescribed by said act of March 17, 1910, is invalid, the provision 
of law in this State permitting the party that desires to vote a straight party 
ticket to put a cross in the circle under the rooster, eagle, or other party emblem 
to indicate his intention of thereby voting for all of said candidates would be 
void, as the party who did not desire to vote a straight ticket would have an 
additional burden placed upon him, and the election laws existing under the 
Territory of Oklahoma, as well as such laws as now are in force, would be 
repugnant to the provisions of the constitution. 

This amendment was adopted by virtue of the initiative and referendum 
powers of the constitution (sees. 2 and 3, art. 5, and sec. 3, art. 24, const. 
Okla. ) . The petitions were prepared, filed, and submitted in accordance there- 
with. The initiative and referendum provision, not being self-enforcing 
(Ex parte Wagner, supra), legislation was essential. In cases where such 
amendments have been suggested by the legislature by concurrent resolution, 
a certain form of ballot is prescribed. It having been especially committed 
to the legislature to enact laws, " for carrying into effect provisions relating 
to the initiative and referendum" (art. 5, sec. 58, const.), courts will not revise 
such discretionary powers. ( State v. Shields. 4 Mo. App., 259 ; Okla. Citv v. 
Shields, 22 Okla.. 265; 100 Pac. 559. In re Menefee, Treas., 22 Okla.. 365; 
97 Pac, 1014. Rakowski v. Wagoner, 24 Okla., 282; 103 Pac, 632. State v. 
Brown. Judge, 24 Okla., 433 : 103 Pac, 763. ) Such form of ballot having been 
prescribed in the valid exercise of its legislative discretion, this court can 
not revise same. So section 10, article 1, chapter 44, page 447, session laws 
1907-8 does not apply to said submission under the initiative and referendum. 

Said amendment, having been legally adopted, seems to harmonize with all 
the provisions of the constitution of this State, unless it be section 6 of article 1. 
This section is merely declaratory of the fifteenth amendment to the Federal 
Constitution, and will be considered under svibdivision 2 of this opinion. As 
to all other provisions of the State constitution, said provision appears to 

4252—13 13 



194 CAENEY VS. MOKGAN. 

harmonize and to have been adopted in all respects in accordance therewith. 

2 " * * * -^Q state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge 
the privileges of immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any 
State deprive anj^ person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of 
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of 
the laws." (Sec. 1, art. 14, Amendment to the Federal Constitution.) "The 
right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged 
by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous 
condition of servitude." (Sec. 1, art 15, Amendment to the Federal Con- 
stitution. ) Section 4a of article 3, supra, provides : " No person shall be 
registered as an elector of this State, or be allowed to vote in any election 
herein, unless he be able to read and write any section of the constitution of 
the State of Oklahoma ; but no person who was on January 1, 1866, or at any 
time prior thereto entitled to vote under any form of government, or who at 
that time resided in some foreign nation and no lineal descendant of such 
person shall be denied the right to register and vote because of his inability 
to so read and write sections of such constitution. Precinct election inspectors 
having in charge the registration of electors shall enforce the provisions of this 
section at the time of registration provided registration be required. Should 
registration be dispensed with the provisions of this section shall be enforced 
by the present election officers when electors apply for ballots to vote." 

In Williams v. State of Mississippi (170 U. S., 220, 18 Sup. 583, 42 L. Ed., 
1015), Mr. Justice McKenna, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the court, 
said, " It is not asserted by plaintiff in error that either the constitution of 
the State or its laws discriminate in terms agains the negro race, either as to 
the elective franchise or the privilege or duty of sitting on juries. These 
results, if we understand plaintiff in error, are alleged to be effected by the 
powers vested in certain administrative officers. Plaintiff in error says: 
' Section 241 of the constitution of 1890 prescribes the qiialifications for 
electors; that residence in the State for two years, one year in the precinct of 
the applicant, must be effected; that he is 21 years or over of age, having paid 
all taxes legally due of him for two years prior to 1st day of February of the 
year he offers to vote; not having been convicted of theft, arson, rape, receiv- 
ing money or goods under false pretenses, bigamy, embezzlement. Section 
242 of the constitution provides the mode of registration; that the legislature 
shall provide by law for registration of all persons entitled to vote at any 
election; that all persons offering to register shall take the oath; that they 
are not disqualified for voting by reason of any of the crimes named in the 
constitution of this State; that they will truly answer all questions pro- 
pounded to them concerning their antecedents so far as they relate to the 
applicant's right to vote, and also as to their residence before their citizen- 
ship in the district in which such application for registration is made.' The 
court readily sees the scheme. If the applicant swears, as he must do, that 
he is not disqualified by reason of the crimes specified, and that he has 
effected the required residence, what right has he to answer all questions as 
to his former residence? Section 244 of the constitution requires that the 
applicant for registration after January, 1892, shall be able to read any 
section of the constitution, or he shall be able to understand the same (being 
any section of the organic law) or give a reasonable interpretation thereof. 
Now, we submit that these provisions vest in the administrative officers the 
full power, under section 242. to ask all sorts of vain, impertinent questions, 
and it is with that officer to say whether the questions relate to the applicant's 
right to vote. This officer can reject whomsoever he chooses, and register 
whomsoever he chooses, for he is vested by the constitution with that power. 
Under section 244 it is left with the administrative officer to determine whether 
the applicant reads, understand, or interprets the section of the constitution 
designated. The officer is the sole judge of the examination of the applicant, 
and, even though the applicant be qualified, it is left with the officer to so 
determine; and the said officer can refuse him registration. To make the 
possible dereliction of the officers the dereliction of the constitution and laws, 
the remarks of the supreme court of the State are quoted by plaintiff In error 
as to their intent. The constitution provides for the payment of a poll tax, 
and by a section of the code its payment can not be compelled by a seizure 
and sale of property. We gather from the brief of counsel that its payment 
is a condition of the right to vote, and, in a case to test whether its payment 
was or was not optional (Ratliff v. Beale, 74 Miss., 247, 20 South, 865, 34 
L. R. A., 472), the supreme court of the State said: 'Within the field of 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN". 195 

permissible action under tlie limitations imposed by the Federal Constitution 
the convention swept the circle of expedients to obstruct the exercise of the 
franchise by the negro race.' And further the court said, speaking of the 
negro race : ' By reason of its previous condition of servitude and dependence, 
this race had acquired or accentuated certain peculiarities of habit, of 
temperament, and of character, which clearly distinguishes it as a race from 
that of the whites — a patient, docile people, but careless, landless, a migratory 
within narrow limits, without forethought, and its criminal members given 
rather to furtive offenses than to the robust crimes of the whites. Restrained 
by the Federal Constitution from discriminating against the negro race, the 
convention discriminated against its characteristics anrl the offenses to which 
its weaker members were prone.' But nothing tangible can be deduced from 
this. If weakness were to be taken advantage of, it was to be done ' within 
the field of permissible action luider the limitations imposed by the Federal 
Constitution,' and the means of it were the alleged characteristics of the 
negro race, not the administration of the law by the officers of the State. 
Besides the operation of the constitution and laws is not limited by their 
language or effects to one race. They reach weak and vicious white men 
as well as weak and vicious black men, and whatever is sinister in their 
intention, if anything, can be prevented by both races by the exertion of that 
duty which voluntarily pays taxes and refrains from crime." 

In Pope f. Williams et al. (193 U. S., 621; 24 Sup. Ct, 573; 48 L. Ed., 817), 
Mr. Justice Peckham, in delivering the opinion of the court, said : " The privilege 
to vote in any State is not given by the Federal Constitution, or by any of its 
amendments. It is not a privilege springing from citizenship of the United 
States. (Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall., 162; 22 L. Ed., 627.) It may not be 
refused on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude ; but it 
does not follow from mere citizenship of the United States. In other words, the 
privilege to vote in a State is within the jurisdiction of the State itself, to be 
exercised as the State may direct, and upon such terms as to it may seem 
proper, provided, of course, no discrimination is made between individuals in 
violation of the Federal Constitution. The State might provide that persons of 
foreign birth could vote without being naturalized, and, as stated by Mr. Chief 
Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (21 Wal., 162; 22 L. Ed., 627), such 
I)ersons were allowed to vote in several of the States upon having declared 
their intentions to become citizens of the United States. Some States permit 
women to vote ; others refuse them that privilege. A State, so far as the 
Federal Constitution is concerned, might provide by its own constitution and 
laws that none but native-born citizens should be permitted to vote, as the 
Federal Constitution does not. confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and the 
conditions under which that right is to be exercised are matters for the States 
alone to prescribe, subject to the conditions of the Federal Constitution, already 
stated; although it may be observed that the right to vote for a Member of 
Congress is not derived exclusively from the State law. (See Const. U. S., 
art 1, sec. 2; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U. S., 58; 45 L. Ed., 84; 21 Sup. Ct, 17.) 
But the elector must be one entitled to vote under the State statute (Id., id.; 
see. also, Swafford v. Templeton, 185 U. S., 487, 491 ; 46 L. Ed., 1005, 1007 ; 22 
Sup. Ct., 783.) In this case no question arises as to the right to vote for 
electors of President and Vice President and no decision is made thereon. The 
^juestion whether the conditions prescribed by the State might be regarded 
by others as reasonable or unreasonable is not a Federal one. We do not wish 
to be understood, however, as intimating that the condition in this statute is 
unreasonable or in any way improper. We are unable to see any violation 
of the Federal Constitution in the provision of the State statute for the declara- 
tion of the intent of a person coming into the State before he can claim 
the right to be registered as a voter. The statute, so far as it provides con- 
ditions precedent to the exercise of the elective franchise within the State, by 
persons coming therein to reside (and that is as far as it is necessary to con- 
sider it in this case), is neitlier an unlawful discrimination against anyone 
in the situation of the plaintiff in error, nor does it deny to him the equal pro- 
tection of the laws, nor is it repugnant to any fundamental or inalienable rights 
of citizens of the United States, nor a violation of any implied guaranties of 
the Federal Constitution. The right of a State to legislate upon the subject 
of the elective franchise as to it may seem good, subject to the conditions 
already stated, being, as we believe, unassailable, we think it plain that the 
statute in question violates no right protected by the Federal Constitution. The 
reasons which may have impelled the State legislature to enact the statute in 



196 CAENEY VS. MOEGAN. 

question were matters entirely for its consideration, and tliis court lias no con- 
cern with them." 

(See also Franklin v. South Carolina, 21S U. S., 161; 30 Sup. Ct.. 640; 54 
L. Ed., — .) 

By this amendment, which was suggested by concurrent resolution of the 
Legislature of the State of Oklahoma and proposed by an initiative petition on 
the part of the qualified electors of said State, and afterwards adopted by a 
majority of the electors " voting at an election held throughout the State," 
and thereby declared by the legislature, recommending and at least 15 
per cent of the qualified electors joining in said petition with a majority of 
those voting at said election, approving the same, that said limitations on the 
right of suffrage were reasonable and not violative of the Federal or State 
Constitution. As was said in the Mississippi case, this amendment does not on 
Its face discriminate between the races. 

Limitations on the right of suffrage existed in the States on January 1, 
1866, as follows: Connecticut (Const. 1S36, art. S, as adopted in 1845), an 
elector to be qualified must " sustain a good moral character.'" Delaware 
(Const. 1831, art 4), electors, with certain exceptions, must have for two years 
next before the election paid a county tax, which shall have been assessed for 
over six months prior to said election. Massachusetts (Const. 1780, art. 3, 
adopted in 1822, as supplemented by art. 20 as adopted in 1857), an elector, 
with a few exceptions, must have paid by himself, his parent, master, or 
guardian, any State or county tax which shall have been assessed upon him, 
in any town or district of this Commonwealth, and, in addition thereto, must 
be able to read the constitution in the English language and write his name. 
Khode Island (Const. 1842, art. 2, sec. 1), an elector, with certain exception, 
must be " really and truly possessed in his own right of real estate," in a town 
or city " of the value of $134, over and above all incumbrances, or which shall 
rent for $7 per annum, over and above any rent, reserved or the interest of any 
incumbrances thereon," etc. And section 2 of said article further provides that 
electors to be qualified must also have paid " a tax or taxes assessed upon his 
estate within said State and within a year of the time of voting" to the amount 
of $1. Vermont (Const. 1793, ch. 1, art. 8; ch. 2, art. 39; and art. 1 of the 
amendment), an elector was required to be of good moral character, and have 
a " sufficient " evident, common interest with, and attachment to, the com- 
munity. Virginia (Const. 1864, art. 3, sec. 1), an elector must have first "paid 
all taxes assessed to him." 

In practically every State of the Union On January 1. 1866, persons were dis- 
qualified from voting who had been convicted of infamous crimes, unless such 
disqualification had been removed, etc. In addition, an alien residing in this 
country on January 1, 1866, neither having become a naturalized citizen nor 
having declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States, was not 
entitled to vote in any of the States. At that time there were many foreign 
Governments where the right of suffrage did not exist in any way, and in nearly 
all others where it existed at that time it was with many limitations. Such 
alien residing in the United States on January 1, 1866. neither being entitled 
to vote in the place of his residence nor under any organized government where 
he had previously resided or been a citizen of, and his descendants would also 
be subject to this educational qualification, coming within the excluded class 
as of the date of January 1, 1866. Further, the blanket Indians on January 1, 
1866, had no organized form of government under which they might exercise 
the right of sufi^rage. The Cherokees, Chickasaws, Choctaws, Creeks, Osages, 
and Seminoles had such a government, and seem to have been the only tribes, 
the remnants of which now remain in this State, which had such a government. 
Again many States have similar existing suffrage limitations where the same 
have been enforced and recognized in the election of State officers and Members 
of Congress (Const. Ala., 1901, sec. 180, pars. 1, 2; Const. La., 1898, art. 197, sec. 
5; Const. N. C, 1876, art. 6, sec. 1; Const. Va., 1902, sec. 19, pars. 1, 2 (Code, 
1904, p. ccxii). Maine has a provision (amendment 29, adopted in 1892), as 
follows : " No person shall have the right to vote or be eligible to office under the 
constitution of this State, who shall not be able to read the consMtution in the 
English language and write his name ; Provided, however, That the provisions 
of this amendment shall not apply to any person prevented by a physical dis- 
ability from complying with the requisitions, nor to any person who now has the 
right to vote, nor to any person who shall be 60 years of age or upward at the 
time this amendment shall take effect." In the Maine provision the educational 
requirement is not to apply to any person then having the right to vote. The 



CAKJSTEY VS. MOEGAN. 197 

Oklahoma provision, excluding from its operation persons having the right to 
vo"e en January 1, 1866, adopts the same principle, extending same so as to 
include their descendants. Paragraph 3 of section 1. article 7, Constitution of 
Minnesota, 1857, as amended November 3, 1868, provides as follows: "Persons 
of Indian blood, residing in this State, who have adopted the language, customs, 
and habits of civilization, affer an examination before any district court of the 
State, in such manner as may be provided by law. and shall have been pro- 
nounced by said court capable of enjoying the rights of citizenship within the 
State, shall be entitled to vote." In the following States, on and prior to the 
1st day of January, A. D. 1866, negroes were eligible to vote: Vermont (Const, 
1793, c. 1, art. 8, and chap. 2, sec. 39, and art. 1 of its amendments) : Massa- 
chusetts (Const., 1780, amend, arts. 3. 20^ ; New Hampshire (Const., 1792, Bill 
of Pdghts. art. 11) : Maine (Const.. 1819, art. 1, sec. 1) ; Rhode Island (Const., 
1842, art. 2) : New York (Const. 1846. art. 2) ; Mich. (Const., 1850, art. 7) ; New 
Jersey (Const., 1683. art. 3; Const.. 1776, art. 4; Const., 1844. art 2). In the 
following other States free negroes were eligible to vote at different periods to 
January 1. 1866, to wit: Maryland (Const.. 1776, Bill of Rights, sec. 5) ; Hughes 
V. Jackson (12 Md., 450). Tennessee (Const, 1796, sec. 1, art 3). Texas 
(Const., 1836, sec. 11, art. 6; Const, 1845, sec. 2, art 1). South Carolina 
(Const., 1778, art. 41). Kentucky (Const., 1792, sec. 1, art. 3.) Delaware 
(Const. 1776, arts. 26, 27). Alabama (Const. 1819, sec. 1, art 1). North 
Carolina (Const. 1776, art 6). Connecticut (Chart., 1662; charter continued 
as constitution until 1818). Pennsylvania (Const., 1776. sec. 7, Decl. of Rights; 
Const., 1790, sec. 1, art 3). 

To say, because plaintiff or his ancestors, who were not entitled to vote under 
any organized form of government on or prior to January 1, 1866, or who were 
not then nonresident aliens having since come to the United States and become 
citizens of naturalization, that said amendment discriminates against them on 
account of race or color, is as unfounded as to say that a property qualifica<-ion 
discriminates on account of previous condition of servitude, for the reason that 
if a man had not been held in bondage he would have been able to acquire 
property, as a slave could not acquire property any more than he could vote. 

It is a matter of common knowledge that the population of this State is 
cosmopolitan, embracing people of every creed and race from practically every 
State in the Union. All of those persons who on January 1, 1866, or at any 
time prior thereto, were entitled to vote under any form of government or 
State or Territory of this Union, or who at that time residing in some foreign 
nation, afterwards came to the United States and by naturaliza<-ion became citi- 
zens of the United States and their lineal descendants, regardless of race or 
previous condition of servitude, are permitted to vote at the elections in this 
State without complying with the educational requirements of said provision. 
That is a classification based upon a reason; that is, that any person who was 
entitled to vo*^e under a form of government on or prior to said date is still pre- 
sumed to be qualified to exercise such right, and the presumption follows as to 
his offspring — that is, that the virtues and intelligence of the ancester will be 
imputed to his descendants, .lust as the iniquity of the fathers may be visited 
upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. But as to those who 
were not entitled to vote under any form of government on said date or at any 
prior time, and their descendants, there is no presumption in favor of their 
qualification, and the burden is upon them to show themselves qualified. This 
does not apply to any one race but to every race that falls within this disquali- 
fication. The alien who resided in some foreign country on the 1st day of 
January, 1866. who was not entitled to vote under that form of government, 
and who afterwards came to the United States and became naturalized, was 
required to undergo an examination to show himself qualified and fitted for 
citizenship, and v,'hen the courts of this Republic, or the different States thereof, 
exercising the powers of naturalization, have examined and passed upon his 
qualification, the presumption in favor of his qualification is recognized. The 
alien who resided in the United States on Januaiy 1. 1866. having not taken 
advantage of the opportuni*^y to become a citizen of this Republic, and who had 
not previously been a qiialified voter, under some form of government, falls 
T\n[thin the class upon whom the educational restriction is imposed. No alien 
or foreigner can become a qualified elector in this State unMl he has by naturali- 
zation become a citizen of the United States. The negro, previously a slave, who 
became a freeman, or has always been such, and resided in Massachusetts, 
Vermont, New Hampshire. Maine, Rhode Island, or New York, Michigan, New 
Jersey, and certain other States, as named, at such times that free negroes were 



198 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

permitted to vote, and otherwise being eligible to vote, living on January 1, 
1866, or his descendants who reside in this State, may vote under this provi- 
sion regardless of the educational requirement. As to the children of all elec- 
tors, however, it is now compulsory upon them to attend the public schools of 
this State, and thereby receive an education. (Art. 1, c. 34, pp. 393, 395, Sess. 
Laws, 1907-8.) 

But does this provision violate section 3 of the enabling act of Olslahoma 
of June 16, 1906 (ch. 3335, 34 Stat., p. 269), which provides that the constitu- 
tion adopted in this State " shall malie no distinction in civil or political rights 
on account of race or color " ? We think not. However, the people of this 
State, by section 1 of the bill of rights, have declared " that all political power 
is inherent in the people and government is instituted for their protection, 
security, and benefit and to promote their genei'al welfare, and they have the 
right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it, 
provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States." 
The State was erected and admitted into the Union under this constitution, 
which was passed on by the President of the United States and his procla- 
mation of admission issued thereon with such a declared reservation on the 
part of sovereignty. It is specifically provided in said section that the right 
to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it is limited 
by the proviso only to the extent that such alteration or revision shall not con- 
flict with the Constitution of the United States. It has time and again been 
held that if the constitution of a State contains any modifications of the pro- 
visions of the enabling act whereby the State has been formally admitted 
by the President and Congress into the Union the modification contained in 
the constitution controls. (Romine v. State et al.. 7 Wash., 215, 34 Pac, 924; 
Edwards v. Lesueur, 132 Mo., 410, 33 S. W. 1130, 31 L. R. A., 815 ; Williams v. 
Hert (C. C.) 110 Fed., 166; State of Montana v. Rice, 204 U. S., 291, 27 Sup. Ct, 
281, 51 L. Ed., 490.) It is therefore not essential in this case to determine 
whether a provision in the enabling act accepted by an irrevocable ordinance on 
the part of the State, preliminary to admission, could have a continuing, bind- 
ing force upon the State after its erection and admission into the Union upon 
an equality with the other States so as to control the government in its sov- 
ereign capacity in the exercise of a purely governmental power. 

That part of section 3 of the enabling act provides that the convention " shall 
declare on behalf of the people of said proposed State that they adopt the 
Constitution of the United States; whereupon the said convention shall and 
is hereby authorized to form a constitution and State government for said 
proposed"^ State. Tbe constitution shall be republican in form and make no 
distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, and shall not 
be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and Declaration of 
Independence." Section 4 of the enabling act provides : " * * * And if the 
constitution and government of said proposed State are republican in form, 
and if the provisions in this act have been complied with in the formation 
thereof, it shall be the duty of the President of the United States, within 20 
days from the receipt of the certificate of the result of said election and the 
statement of votes cast thereon and a copy of said constitution, articles, propo- 
sitions, and ordinances, to issue his proclamation announcing the result of said 
election; and thereupon the proposed State of Oklahoma shall be deemed 
admitted by Congress into the Union, under and by virtue of this act, on an 
equal footing with the original States." The provision of section 3 was directed 
to the constitutional convention as to the character of constitution to frame, 
which having been so framed and adopted, the President was to issue his procla- 
mation thereon. It was not attempted to continue that part of the enabling act 
in force forever as an irrevocable limitation on the sovereign powers of the 
State in that respect. 

In Williams v. Mississippi, supra, it was said: 

" It can not be said, therefore, that the denial of the equal protection of the 
laws arises primarily from the constitution and laws of Mississippi, nor is 
there any sufficient allegation of an evil and discriminating administration of 
them. The only allegation is ' by granting a discretion to the said officers, as 
mentioned in the several sections of the constitution of the State, and the 
statute of the State adopted under the said constitution, the use of which dis- 
cretion can be and has been used by said officers in the said Washington County 
to the end here complained of. to wit, the abridgment of the elective franchise 
of the colored voters of Washington County, that such citizens are denied the 
right to be selected as jurors to serve in the circuit court of the county, and 



CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 199 

that this denial to them of the right to equal protection and benefits of the laws 
of the State of Mississippi on account of their color and I'ace. resulting from 
the exercise of the discretion partial to the white citizens, is in accordance with 
and the purpose and intent of the framers of the present constitution of said 
State.' 

" It will be observed that there is nothing direct and definite in this allega- 
tion either as to means or time as affecting the proceedings against the accused. 
There is no charge against the officers to whom is submitted the selection of 
grand or petit jurors or those who procure the list of the jurors. There is an 
allegation of the purpose of the convention to disfranchise citizens of the col- 
ored race, but with this we have no concern unless the purpose is executed by 
the constitution or laws or by those who administer them. If it is done in the 
latter way, how or by what means should be shown. We gather from the 
statements of the motion that cei'tain officers are invested with discretion in 
maliing up lists of electors, and that this discretion can be and has been exer- 
cised against the colored race, and from these lists jurors are selected. The 
Supreme Court of Mississippi, however, decided, in a case presenting the same 
questions as the one at bar, ' that jurors are not selected from or with refer- 
ence to any lists furnished by such election officers.' (Dixon v. State, 74 Miss., 
278, 20 South., S41, Nov. 9, 1896.) 

" We do not think that this case is brought within the ruling in Yicli Wo v. 
Hopkins, Sheriff (118 U. S., 356; 6 Sup. Ct., 1064; 30 L. Ed., 220). In that 
case the ordinances passed on discriminated against laundries conducted in 
wooden buildings. For the conduct of these the consent of the board of super- 
visors was required, and not for the conduct of laundries in brick or stone 
buildings. It was admitted that there were about 320 laundries in the city 
and county of San Francisco, of which 240 were owned and conducted by sub- 
jects of China, and of the whole number 310 were constructed of wood, the 
same material that constitutes nine-tenths of the houses of the city, and that 
the capital invested was not less than $200,000. 

" It was alleged that 150 Chinamen were arrested and not one of the persons 
who were conducting the other 80 laundries and who were not Chinan^en. It 
was also admitted * that petitioner and 200 of his countrymen similarly Situated 
petitioned the board of supervisors for permission to continue their business in 
the various houses which they had been occupying and using for laundries for 
more than 20 years, and such petitions were denied, and all the . petitions of 
those who were not Chinese, with one exception, that of Mrs. Mary Meagles, 
were granted.' The ordinances were attacked as being void on their face and 
as being within the prohibition of the fourteenth amendment, but, even if not 
so, that they were void by reason of their administration. Both contentions 
were sustained. Mr. Justice Matthews said that the ordinance drawn in ques- 
tion ' does not prescribe a rule and conditions for the regulation of the use of 
property for laundry purposes, to which all similarly situated may conform. 
It allows without restriction the use for such purposes of buildings of brick or 
stone; but as to wooden buildings, constituting nearly all those in previous use, 
it divides the owners or occupiers into two classes, not having respect to their 
personal character and qualifications for the business nor the situation and 
nature and adaption of the buildings themselves, but merely by an arbitrary 
line, on one side of which are those who are permitted to pursue their industry 
by the mere will and consent of the supervisors, and on the other those from 
whom that consent is withheld, at their mere will and pleasure.' The ordi- 
nances, therefore, were on their face repugnant to the fourteenth amendment. 
The court, however, went further and said : ' This conclusion and the reasoning 
on which it is based are deductions from the face of the ordinance as to its nec- 
essary tendency and ultimate actual operation. In the present cases we are 
not obliged to reason from the probable to the actual, and pass upon the validity 
of the ordinances complained of, as tried merely by the opportunities which 
their terms afford, of unequal and unjust*discrimination in the administration, 
for the cases present the ordinances in actual operation, and the facts shown 
establish an administration directed as exclusively against a particular class of 
persons as to warrant and require the conclusion that, whatever may have been 
tbe intent of the ordinances as adopted, they are applied by the public authori- 
ties charged with their administration, and thus representing the State itself.- 
with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the 
State of that equal protection of the laws which is secure to the petitioners, as 
to all other persons, by the broad and benign provisions of the fourteenth amend- 
ment to the Constitution of the United States. Though the law itself be fair on 



200 CAENEY VS. MORGAN". 

its face and impartial in appearance, yet if it is applied and administered by pub- 
lic authority \Yitb an evil eye and an unequal band, so as practically to make 
unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, 
material to tbeir rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibi- 
tion of the Constitution. This principle of interpretation has been sanctioned 
in Henderson v. Mayor of New York (Henderson r. Wickham), 92 IT. S., 259, 
23 L. Ed.. 543; Chy Lung r. Freeman, 92 U. S.. 275, 23 L. Ed., 550; Ex parte 
Virginia. 100 U. S.. 339, 25 L. Ed., 676; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U S., 370, 26 
L. Ed., 567 ; and Soon Hing v. Crowley, 113 U. S., 703. 5 Sup. Ct., 730, 28 L. Ed., 
1145.' 

" This comment is not applicable to the constitution of Mississippi and its 
statutes. They do not on their face discriminate between the races, and it has 
not been shown that their actual administration wa^; evil, only that evil was 
possible under them." 

As was said by the Supreme Court of the United States in Pope v. Williams, 
supra, the reasons which may have impelled the people to adopt this amend- 
ment were matters entirely for their consideration, and this court has no con- 
cern with them. 

This amendment has never been put in operation, since its adoption, and 
how could it be "shown that their (its) actual administration was evil iintil 
the same is put in operation"? (Williams v. Mississippi, supra.) Every elec- 
tion officer is sworn not only to observe but also to obey the law, which includes 
this amendment. And the presumption is that they will fairly carry the law 
into effect. Should the election ofhcers knowingly and willfully exclude ne- 
groes from voting who are qualified to vote under section 4a, article 3, suffi- 
ciently in number, had all been counted for the next highest candidate, to have 
changed the result of the election, said election ATOuld be void. (Martin v. 
McGarr, recently decided but not yet officially reported, 112 Pa.. — .) 

The parties hereto in the argument have treated the questions as properly 
raised under this proceeding. Without passing on whether the proper remedy 
had been invoked for the purpose of this case we have assumed that such 
relief may be obtained by injunction. 

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. 

Dunn, C. J., and Hayes and Turner, JJ., concur. Kane. L., concurs in the 
conclusion reached, but dissents from that part of the reasoning as to the 
enabling act. 

State of Oklahoma, OMaJwma County, ss: 

I, Mary S. Stotler, notary public in and for Oklahoma County, State of Okla- 
homa, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing pages, marked and num- 
bered, respectively, at the bottom of each page, 1 to IS, inclusive, is a full, true, 
correct, and complete copy of Exhibit D, introduced in evidence by the con- 
testee in the taking of depositions or evidence before me in the case now pend- 
ing before the House of Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the 
United States of America wherein John J. Carney is contestant and Dick T. 
Morgan is contestee. 

[seal.] Maky S. Stotler, 

'Motary Public, OJclalioma County, Olcla. 

My commission expires September 1, 1914, 



Contestee's Exhibit E. 

ex parte show. 

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, December 3. 1910. 

[S5-llabus by the Court.] 

1. Habeas Corpus (sec. 30) — Grounds of Remedy. 

The general rule is that the writ of habeas corpus may not be used, either 
before or after conviction, to test the sufficiency of an indictment or informa- 
tion; but the rule is subject to the qualification that when the accusation is not 
merely defective, or technically insufficient, not merely demurrable or subject to 
a motion to quash, but is fundamentally defective in substance, so that it 



CAEISTEY VS. MOEGAISr. 201 

■changes a crime in lio manner or form and by no intendment, a party in custody 
to ans^Yer tliereto, or after conviction tliereon, will be discliarged on habeas 
corpus. 

2. Constitutional Law (sec. 32) — Qualifications of Voters — Consteuction 

OF Constitution. 
Section 4a of article 3 of the State constitution, being an amendment adopted 
by the people at the election held on August 2, 1910. prescribing an educational 
qualification for certain voters, is self-executing. 

3. Elections (sec. 223) — Qualifications of Votees — Deteemination. 

The question of a person's possession of the educational qualificatiou pre- 
scribed for voters by section 4a of article 3 of the State constitution is to be 
determined by the precinct election inspector having registration in charge, and 
at the time of registration, if registration is required ; and it is only when and 
where registration is dispensed with that such question is to be determined by 
the precinct election officers at the polls. 

4. Elections (sec. 113) — Qualifications of Votees — Evidence — Registeation. 
Under article 8, chapter 31, Session Laws, 1907-8. registration is required in 

cities of the first class in this State, and electors therein, to be entitled to vote, 
are required to register during the month of July preceding each biennial pri- 
mary election held in August; but persons who become legal voters subsequent 
to such registration, and on or before the general election in November, may 
register during the last week in October preceding the general election in No- 
vember. 

5. Elections (sec. 113) — Qualifications of Votees — Evidence — Registration. 
Since the act approved March 28. 1910. providing for the challenge of any 

voter, and further providing that after challenge, he may vote only upon making 
a certain affidavit therein prescribed, the registration provided for in article 8, 
chapter 31, Session T^aws, 1907-8, is only prima facie, and not conclusive, evi- 
dence of the possession of the qualifications mentioned in the subsequent act 
approved March 28, 1910. 

6. Elections (sec. 113) — Qualifications of Voters — Evidence — Registration. 
Registration made in July, 1910, is no evidence of a person's possession of 

the educational qualificatoin prescribed for electors by the constitution;! 1 amend- 
ment adopted August 2. 1910; but registration made in October, r.)10. ()eing sub- 
sequent to the adoption of the amendment, establishes sueli qualification. 

7. Elections (sec. 223) — Qualifications of Voters — Construction of Statutes. 
Section 4 of the act of the legislature approved March 28, 1910 (Laws, 1910, 

c. 116), prescribes no test whatsoever of a person's qualification to vote under 
section 4a of article 3 of the constitution adopted on August 2, 1910. 

8. Elections (sec. 223) — Qualifications of Votees — Determination. 

When it appears that a person offering to vote in a city of the first class has 
not registered since the adoption of the constitutional amendment on August 2. 
1910, and was not on January 1, 1866, or at some time prior thereto, entitled 
to vote under any form of government, and did not on said date reside in some 
foreign nation, and is not a lineal descendant of such person, the precinct elec- 
tion officers may lawfully require such person to read and write a section of the 
constitution before permitting him to vote. 

9. Elections (sec. 328) — Violation of Election Laws — Defrauding Electob 

OF HIS Vote — Prosecution — Sufficiency of Information. 
An information, charging a precinct election inspector in a city of the first 
class with the offense of defrauding B of his vote, showed that B was not 
entitled to vote under any form of government on January 1, 1866, or at any 
lime prior thereto, did not on that date reside in some foreign nation, and was 
not the lineal descendant of such a person. It charged that B made and ten- 
dered an affidavit as to his qualifications, as prescribed in section 4 of the act 
approved March 28, 1910 (Laws, 1910, c. 116), in which affidavit was incor- 
porated the additional statement that B could read and write any section of 
the State constitution ; that the inspector nevertheless refused to permit B to 
vote until the latter should first read and write a section of the constitution in 
the inspector's presence. The information did not allege whether B had regis- 
tered as an elector, and if so, at what time. Held, That the information was 



202 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

defective in failing to allege that B had registered as a voter subsequent to 
the adoption of the constitutional amendment prescribing an educational quali- 
fication for voters ; and the county attorney having stated in open court that 
B was not registered after the adoption of said amendment, and that the infor- 
mation, therefore, could not be amended in that respect, no offense was alleged 
or could be alleged, and petitioner is entitled to be discharged. 

[Additional Syllabus bj' Editorial Staff.] 

10. Indictment and Information (sec. 17)- — "Indictment" Defined. 

Under Snyder's Comp. Laws, 1909, sec. 6674, an " indictment " is defined as 
" an accusation in writing, presented by a grand jury to a competent court, 
charging a person with a public offense." 

11. IDICTMENT and INFORMATION (seC. 35) " INFORMATION " DEFINED. 

An " information " is defined to be a written accusation of crime preferred 
by the district attorney or other public prosecuting oflicer without the inter- 
vention of a grand jury. 

Application of A. J. Show for a writ of habeas corpus. Writ granted and 
petitioner discharged. 

R. L. Davidson, W. A. Ledbetter, and J. C. Stone, for petitioner. M. A. 
Breckenridge, county attorney, for respondent. 

Richardson, J. The petition herein, and the return to the writ issued 
thereon, show that on November 10. 1910, M. A. Breckenridge, county attorney 
of Tulsa County, filed in the county court of said county an information against 
the petitioner, A. J. Show, purporting to charge him with violating section 2083, 
Snyder's Compiled Laws, Oklahoma, 1909, by defrauding an elector of his vote, 
which information, omitting the caption, is in woi*ds and figures as follows, 
to wti 

" Be it remembered that M. A. Breckenridge, county attorney in and for 
Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, who prosecutes in the name and by the 
authority of the State of Oklahoma, comes now into the county court of said 
county this 11th day of November, 1910, and gives the court to understand, and 
he informed, that A. P. Blakemore, then and there being over the age of 21 
years, and a native male citizen of the United States, a resident of the State 
of Oklahoma for more than one year prior to November 8, 1910, of the county 
of Tulsa for more than six months prior to November 8. 1910, and a bona fide 
resident of election precinct 18, in the city of Tulsa, Tulsa County, State of 
Oklahoma, for more than 30 days prior to November 8, 1910, did, on the Sth 
day of November, 1910, at election precinct No. 18, in the city of Tulsa, Tulsa 
County, Oklahoma, and within the jurisdiction of this court, present himself 
to vote ; by then and there announcing to the clerk of the election his true name, 
to wit, A. P. Blakemore, giving at the time to the said clerk his street number, 
to wit, 301 N. Frankfort Street; that thereupon the election inspector, one 
A. J. Show, challenged the right of the said elector, A. P. Blakemore, to vote, 
with the intent then and there to defraud the said A. P. Blakemore of his vote 
in this, to wit: By then and there unlawfully, willfully, and with the intent 
to defraud the said elector, A. P. Blakemore. out of his vote, asking the said 
A. P. Blakemore if he, the said A. P. Blakemore, was, on the 1st day of January, 
1866, or at any time prior thereto, entitled to vote under any form of govern- 
ment, or whether he, the said A. P. Blakemore. at that time resided in some 
foreign nation, or was a lineal descendant of such person, and then and there 
demanded of and required the said A. P. Blakemore to answer said question, to 
each of which questions above set forth, said Blakemore answered " No." 
That thereupon said election inspector, A. J. Show, demanded to know of said 
A. P. Blakemore if he, said A. P. Blakemore, could read and write any section 
of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma. That the aforesaid A. P. Blake- 
more then and there stated to said election inspector that he could both read 
and write any section of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma, and then 
and there the said election inspector demanded and requested of said A. P. 
Blakemore that he, the said A. P. Blakemore, then and there, in the presence 
of him, the said election inspector, A. J. Show, read and write a section of the 
constitution of the State of Oklahoma, offering to said A. P. Blakemore at the 
time pen, ink, and paper, and a copy of the constitution of the State of Okla- 
homa, the number or the section of the constitution demanded and requested to 
be read and written being to your informant unknown. That said A. P. 
Blakemore, then and there offered and presented to said election inspector. 



CAENEY VS. MORGAIir. 203 

A. J. Show, an affidavit in writing showing tliat said A. P. Blalvemore could 
read and write any section of the constitution of the State of Oliiahoma, said 
affidavit being in words and figures as follows : 

" Tulsa County — township, 18 precinct. State of Oklahoma, county of Tulsa, 
ss. I do solemnly swear (1) I am a male citizen of the United States. (2) I 
am a native of the United States. (3) I have for more than thirty years last 
past resided in the precinct in which I am now offering to vote, and that 1 
am now a bona fide resident of this precinct. (4) I have resided for more than 
six months last past in the county in which I am now offering to vote. (5) I 
have resided for more than one year last past in the State of Oklahoma. (6) 
I am over the age of 21 years. (7) I am not deprived of any of the rights of 
citizenship by virtue of any conviction of felony. (8) I am not now kept in a 
poor house or other asylum at public expense. (9) I am not now being kept 
in a public prison. (10) I am not a lunatic. (11) I am not an officer or a 
soldier in the Regular Army, or a marine in the Navy of the United States. 
(12) I know of no reason why I am not entitled to vote. (13) I am generally 
known by the name under which I now desire to vote, which is, A. P. Blake- 
more. (14) I have not voted and will not vote in any other precinct in this 
election. (15) My occupation is a preacher. (16) My residence is 301 Frank- 
fort street, Tulsa, Oklahoma. (17) During the last six months I have resided 

at . (18) I have removed from . (19) That P. R. Williams and 

T. W. Gurley have personally known of my residence in the precinct thirty days 

and in the county six months and in the State one year. (20) . (21) I 

am able to read and write any section of the constitution of the State of Okla- 
homa. (22) That the writing upon the reverse side hereof is a section of the 
constitution of the State of Oklahoma, written in my own hand by me in the 
presence of N. G. B. Taylor and W. H. Woods, on the 8th day of November, 
1910. A. P. Blakemore. 

" Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of November, 1910. M. L, 
Lynch, notary public. (Seal.) My commission expires July 27, 1912." 

" That said election inspector, A. J. Show, then and there, for the purpose of 
defrauding said A. P. Blakemore out of his vote, refused to accept the affidavit 
as true, and then and there refused to allow said A. P. Blakemore to vote 
unless and until he. the said A. P. Blakemore, should then and there read and 
write the section of said constitution before mentioned in the presence and in 
the hearing of the said election inspector, A. J. Show. That all of the said 
acts by the election inspector, A. J. Show, were done with intent then and there 
upon the part of him, the said election inspector, A. J. Show, to defraud the said 
A. P. Blakemore out of his vote, contrary to the form of the statutes in such 
cases, made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State. 
M. A. Breckenridge, county attorney." 

" State of Oklahoma, county of Tulsa, ss : A. P. Blakemore, being first duly 
sworn, on oath says that he has read and knows the contents of the foregoing 
information, and that the allegations and statements contained therein are 
true. A. P. Blakemore. 

" Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of November, 1910. 
Minnie M. Thomas, notary public. My commission expires February 8, 1913." 

Upon this information the judge of the county court issued a warrant for 
petitioner's arrest, which the sheriff of the county duly executed. Being in 
custody thereunder, the petitioner has applied for a writ of habeas corpus to 
the end that he be discharged. His contention is that the information charges 
no crime, and does not authorize his detention to answer thereto. On the other 
hand, the respondent insists that the information charges a crime ; and that, even 
if it does not, a writ of habeas corpus will not lie to determine its sufficiency, 
since the matter can be raised by appeal or writ of error. Section 6207, Sny- 
der's Compiled Laws, 1909. provides that : " No court or judge shall inquire 
into the legality of any judgment or process whereby the party is in custody, 
or discharge him when the term of commitment has not expired, in either of 
the cases following. * * * " Fourth. Upon a warrant or commitment issued 
from the district court, or any other court of competent jurisdiction, upon an 
indictment or information." And the section following provides that : " No per- 
son shall be dischaged from an order of commitment issued by any judicial or 
peace officer for want of bail, or in cases not bailable, on account of any defect 
in the charge or process, or for alleged want of probable cause. * * * " 
This statute was construed by the Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma 
in the case entitled In re Potswald (5 Okla., 789; 50 Pac, 139), and it was 
there held that the statute was merely preparatory of the common law, and 



204 CAENEY VS. MORGAN. 

that the court has power under it to inquire into and determine the validity 
of a process upon which a party is restrained of his liberty, and that the effi- 
ciency of the writ could not be so impaired by statute as to take away this 
power. It goes without saying that the writ can not be substituted for an 
appeal or writ of error for the correction of mere error, irregularity, or 
deficiencies, and that, unless the commitment or warrant under which a 
party is held is void and not merely voidable, the writ will not lie. The 
general rule is that the writ may not be used, either before or after con- 
viction, to test the sufficiency of the indictment or information ; but this is 
subject to the qualification recognized in almost every jurisdiction, that where 
the accusation is not merely defective, or technically insufficient, not merely 
demurrable or subject to a motion to quash or set aside, but is elemen- 
tary and fundamentally defective in substance, so that it charges a crime in 
no manner or form and by no intendment, a party in custody to answer thereto, 
or after conviction thereon, will be discharged on habeas corpus. It was stated 
by Chief Baron Gilbert that. " If the commitment be against law, as being made 
by one who had no jurisdiction of the cause, or for a matter for which by law 
no man ought to be punished, the court are to discharge." (Bac. Abr. Hao. 
Corp. B. 10.) And Lord Hale said: '' If it appeared by the return of the writ 
that the party be wrongfully committed or by one that hath not jurisdiction, 
or for a cause for which a man ought not to be imprisoned, he shall be dis- 
charged or bailed." (2 Hale's H. P. C, 144; In Pereles v. Weil, U. S. Marshal, 
(D. C.), 157 Fed., 419). Judge Sanborn used this language: " If the indictment 
is not sufficient on its face to show that an offense against the United States 
has been committed, the defendant should be discharged. If the indictment is 
good in substance, lacking only some technical averment of time or place or 
circumstances to render it free from technical defects, the order for removal 
will be issued if the evidence supplies such defects and shows probable cause 
to believe defendant guilty." Judge Dillon held likewise (In re Buell, 3 
Dill. 116. Fed. Cas. No. 2102. See, also. In re Farez. 7 Blatchf. 34, Fed. Cas. 
No. 4. 644; In re Doig (C. C), 4 Fed., 193; In re Corning, et al. (D. C), 
51 Fed., 205; In re Huntington (D. C), 68 Fed., 881; In re Wolf (D. C), 
27 Fed.. 606; In re Barber (D. C), 75 Fed., 980; In re Greene (C. C), 52 
Fed., 104; United States v. Connors (D. C), 111 Fed., 734.) The Supreme 
Court of California has passed upon this question in numerous cases. In 
Ex parte Corryell (22 Cal., 179), the syllabus is as fohows: "Where, upon 
application for discharge by habeas corpus, it appears that the prisoner, by 
virtue of a commitment in due form, is detained to answer an indictment 
pending in a criminal court, the court or judge hearing the application may 
proceetl to inquire whether the indictment charges any offense known to the 
law ; and upon determining that it does not, may discharge the prisoner. The 
statement in an indictment of some offense known to the law is essential to 
the jurisdiction of the court, and is therefore under well-settled rules a fact 
which may be inquired into upon habeas corpus." In that case it was ob- 
jected that the proceeding by habeas corpus was not proper, that the com- 
mitment emanated from a court of competent jurisdiction, and that its action 
In the premises was not subject to review on habeas corpus. To this the 
supreme court said: "The vice of the objection is that it assumes that the 
court had jurisdiction, whereas the fact of jurisdiction is the very fact which 
the petitioner disputes, alleging that the offense charged is one not known to 
the law. The court derives its jurisdiction from the law, and its jurisdiction 
■extends to such matters as the law makes criminal, and none other, and, 
when it attempts to imprison for an offense to which no criminality is attached, 
it acts beyond its jurisdiction." Again, in Ex parte Kearney (.55 Cal., 212), 
the court discharged the prisoner, saying : " This is not the case of a complaint 
inartificially drawn, which intimates the existence of the facts necessary to the 
constitution of ofl'ense, or even of an attempted statement, insufficient, but 
indicating a purix)se to declare on the essential facts. It is a total failure to 
allege any cause of action, and, however objectionable the conduct imputed 
to the petitioner, he is no more, in the eye of the law, charged by complaint 
with any crime than if the paper had ascribed to him the most innocent of 
deeds." To the same effect are Ex parte McNultv (77 Cal., 164; 19 Pac, 237; 
11 Am. St. Rep., 257); Ex parte Stemes (82 Cal.. 245; 23 Pac, 38); and 
Ex parte Maier (103 Cal., 476; 27 Pac. 402; 42 Am. St. Rep., 129). And 
Church, on Habeas Corpus (2d ed.), section 245, lays down the same rule. 
He says : " While inquiry can not extend beyond an indictment into fields 
of unknown facts, the indictment itself may be examined upon habeas corpus, 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 205 

although it appears that the defendant has been detained to answer it under 
a commitment in due form. The court or judge of the court wherein such 
indictment is pending may proceed to inquire whether it charges any offense 
known to the law. for this goes to the jurisdiction, which is always a proper 
subject of inquiry in a proceeding of this character. If such were not the 
case, the simple warrant of a court, however arbitrary it might be, would con- 
stitute a complete answer to the writ. An indictment must contain the state- 
ment of an oft'ense known to the law, and under the rules well settled by 
judicial decision that this may be inquired into, if the court or judge deter- 
mines that it does not. the prisoner must be discharged as a matter of right, 
particularly in those States where a statute provides that he shall be dis- 
charged wiien the process, though proper in form, has been issued in a case 
not allowed by law." And in the notes the author adds the following : "A 
court can punish for no act except what is made criminal by law. It has no 
power to punish for something unknown to the law. It has jurisdiction to try 
and punish only for certain offenses, and those must be made criminal by 
law. If an indictment shows no offense, there is no criminality shown, and 
there is nothing of which a court can take jurisdiction. And if a court have 
no jurisdiction, its action is void — a condition which it is the very object of 
habeas corpus to cure, ^'oidable informalities or irregularities are not reached 
by it. but fatal jurisdictional defects are ever within its range, either before or 
after indictment, and even after conviction and judgment." And the Supreme 
Court of the United States in (Greene r. Henkel, U. S. Marshal, 183 U. S., 249; 
22 Sup. Ct.. 218; 46 L. Ed.. 177). said: "We do not, however, hold that when 
an indictment charges no offense against the laws of the United States, and 
the evidence fails to show any. or if it appear that the offense charged was 
not committed or triable in the district to which the I'emoval is sought, that 
the court would be justified in ordering the removal, and thus subjecting the 
defendant to the necessity of making such a defense in the court where the 
indictment was found. In that case there would be no jurisdiction to commit 
nor any to order the removal of the prisoner." The rule announced by Church,, 
on Habeas Corpus, and by the Supreme Court of California, is fully sustained 
in Ex parte Prince (27 Fla.. 196; 9 South, 629; 26 Am. St. Rep., 67); Ex 
parte Bailey (29 Fla.. 734; 23 South, 552); In re Farrel (36 Mont. 2.54; 92 
Pac, 785) ; In re Barker (56 Vt., 14) ; State v. Joyns (142 Ala., 61; 38 South, 
755) ; Ex parte Goldman (Cal. App., 88 Pac, 819) ; Ex parte Johnson (6 
Cal. App., 734; 93 Pac, 199) ; and Ex parte Rickey (31 Nev., 82; 100 Pac, 134). 

Our statutes define an indictment as " an accusation in writing, presented by 
a grand jury to a competent court, charging a person with a ])ublic offense." 
Section 6674, Snyder's Compiled Laws Oklahoma. And an information is 
defined to be " a written accusation of crime preferred by the district attorney 
or other public prosecuting officer without the intervention of a grand jury." 
(22 Cyc, 185). And it would seem that an accusation which in no manner 
charges a public offense, which accuses one of an act not a crime, can be neither 
an indictment nor an information. And it is uiformly held that, in the absence 
of a formal and siifficient accusation, the court acquires no jurisdiction what- 
ever, and, if it assumes jurisdiction, a trial and conviction are a nullity. (22 
Cyc. p. 171, and cases there cited.) We think that the foregoing is the law, 
and that a person in custody under a purported indictment or information which 
wholly fails to charge a crime may be released therefrom by writ of habeas 
corpus. But it should be clearly understood that this rule has no application 
to mere technical defects or omissions or to mere matters of form. It must 
clearly appear therefrom that the act intended to be charged was not a crime. 
If from the accusation the court can deduce that the prosecutor intended to 
charge an act which is a crime, habeas corpus will not lie, however defectively 
the act is described. Does this information charge a crime? The answer to 
this question involves a consideration and construction of section 4 of the act 
approved March 28, 1910 (Sess. Laws 1910, p. 242), and of section 4a of 
article 3 of the Constitution, being an amendment adopted by the people at 
the election held on August 2, 1910. 

Section 4 of the session law in question reads as follows : " Sec. 4. Any elector 
shall on presenting himself to vote announce to the clerk of the election his 
name, and in towns and cities of the first class shall give his street number. 
Any election inspector, or challenger, may challenge the right of any voter to 
vote. Any person so challenged shall retire from the inclosure and not be 
entitled to vote imless he makes an affidavit in writing that he is a qualified 
and legal voter of the precinct, also his name, residence, occupation, place or 



206 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

places of residence during the six months prior to the election, with the date of 
any removal within that time, and the names of two persons who have personal 
knowledge of his residence in the precinct thirty days; and the county six 
months and the State one year ; and if registered. He shall then be allowed to 
vote, unless the election inspector or challenger makes affidavit in writing that 
he knows or is informed and verily believes that the person offering to vote is 
not a legal voter of the precinct ; and the person offering to shall not thereafter 
be allowed to vote unless one qualifled elector of the precinct who has been a 
freeholder and householder in the precinct for at least one year next preceding 
such election shall make affidavit in writing that he has personal knowledge of 
such person offering to vote being a legal voter at the precinct. The affidavit 
of the person challenged shall be in the following form : 

" State of Oklahoma, county of , ss: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 

(1) I am a male citizen of the United States. (2)1 am a native of the United 
States. (3) I have for more than thirty days last past resided in the precinct 
in which I am now offering to vote, and that I am now a bona fide resident of 
this precinct. (4) I have resided for more than six months last past in the 
county in which' I am now offering to vote. (5) I have resided for more than 
one year last past in the State of Oklahoma. (6) I am over the age of 21 
years. (7) I am not deprived of any rights of citizenship by virtue of any 
conviction of a felony. (S) I am not now kept in a poorhouse or other asylum 
at public expense. (9) I am not now kept in a public prison. (10) I am not a 
lunatic. (11) I am not an officer or soldier in the Regular Army, or a marine 
in the Navy of the United States (12) I know of no reason why I am not 
entitled to vote. (13) I am generally known by the name under which I now 

desire to vote, which is . (14) I have not voted and will not vote in 

any other precinct in this election. (15) My occupation is . (16) My 

residence is (if in city or town, give street and number). (17) During 

the last six months I have resided at . (18) I have removed from 

to on the following date. (19) That and have personal knowledge 

of my residence in the precinct thirty days and in the county six months, and 
the State one year. 



" Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 — . . 

" The inspector shall file such affidavit and safely keep the same until it is 
delivered as hereinafter provided to the county election board. 

" The other affidavits herein referred to shall be in the following form : 

" State of Oklahoma, county of , ss : I swear that I know, or am in- 
formed and believe, that , now offering to vote, is not a legal voter in this 

precinct. 



" Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19- 



" State of Oklahoma, county of , ss: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 

that I am a qualified elector of this precinct ; that I have been a freeholder and 
householder in this precinct for one year next preceding this election; that 
, who now desires to vote, has resided in this State for one year imme- 
diately preceding this election; that he has resided in this county six months 

and in this precinct thirty days, at ; that he is now a bona fide resident 

of this precinct and a legal voter therein. These facts I know of my own 
personal knowledge. 

" Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19 — . 



" Should the person challenged not be a native of the United States, unless 
he be of Indian descent, he may strike out the avowal Number '2' in the 
affidavit to be by him subscribed. If he be of Indaln descent he must be a 
native of the United States to be entitlfed to vote. Should the person chal- 
lenged be at the time confined in a poorhouse, or other asylum at public ex- 
pense, he may still be entitled to subscribe to said affidavit and vote provided 
he will strike out of avowal Number ' 8 ' as arranged herein the word 'not' 
and add at the close of such avowal with pen and ink the words ' as a soldier 
of the war of 1S61_65 between the States.' Should the person challenged be 
an officer in the Regular Army or a marine in the Navy of the United States, 
enlisted from this State, he may strike out the word ' not,' in avowal Number 
'1,' and add, at the close of the avowal, the words 'but I enlisted from this 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 207 

State,' and strike out avowal number ' 18 ' in case he has not removed as 
therein provided. 

" The foregoing instructions, following the above jurat, shall be printed upon 
the affidavit in bold type, and immediately following the jurat, with an index 
hand at the beginning of each paragi-aph. When such affidavits have been 
signed and sworn to the clerk shall provide the elector with a ballot." 

The amendment to the constitution adopted on August 2, 1910, is in the 
following language : " Sec. 4a. No person shall be registered as an elector of 
this State, or be allowed to vote in any election held herein, unless he be able 
to read and write any section of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma ; 
but no person who was, on January 1st, 1866, or at any time prior thereto, 
entitled to vote under any form of government, or who at that time resided 
in some foreign nation, and no lineal descendant of such person, shall be denied 
the right to register and vote because of his inability to so read and write 
sections of such constitution. Precinct election inspectors having in charge 
the registration of electors shall enforce the provisions of this section at the 
time of registration, provided registration be required. Should registration 
be dispensed with, the provisions of this section shall be enforced by the pre- 
cinct election officers when electors apply for ballots to vote." 

This amendment was recently considered by the supreme court of this State 
in the case of Joseph Atwater v. W. T. Hassett et al., not yet officially re- 
ported (111 Pac, 802), and it was there held that the same was constitutional 
and valid; and with this conclusion we agree. The questions therefore are (1) 
whether the amendment is self-executing, and (2) whether the affidavit 
provided for in section 4 of the act approved March 28, 1910. is the ulti- 
mate test of one's qualification to vote under the amendment. We think 
the amendment is self-executing. It is prohibitive in character, and desig- 
nates the person or persons who shall enforce the prohibition. The sub- 
stance of the amendment is that no person with certain exceptions shall 
be registered as an elector of this State, or be allowed to vote in any election 
held herein, unless he is able to read and write any section of the State con- 
stitution, and precinct election inspectors are commanded to enforce this in- 
hibition at the time of registration, if registration be required, and, if registra- 
tion be not required, precinct election officers are required to enforce it when 
electors apply for ballots to vote. It is generally held that constitutional pro- 
visions merely prohibitory in character are self-executing, even though legisla- 
tion with respect thereto may be desirable or beneficial, and that the officer 
or officers, board, or tribunal before whom the matter may arise should enforce 
it. (Ex parte McNaught. 23 Okla., 285. 100 Pac, 27; Id.. 1 Okla. Cr., 260; 100 
Pac, 27 ; ex parte Cain, 20 Okla.. 125, 93 Pac, 974 ; Id., 1 Okla. Cr., 7, 93 Pac 
975 ; Hickman v. Kansas City, 120 Mo., 116, 25 S. W., 225, 23 L. R. A., 662. 41 Am. 
St. Rep., 584; Householder v. Kansas City, 83 Mo., 495; Synod of Dakota v. 
South Dakota, 2 S. D., 366. 50 N. W., 632, 14 L. R. A., 421; Washingtoniau 
Home of Chicago v. City of Chicago, 157 111., 414, 41 N. E., 893, 29 L. R. A., 
802 ; Law v. People, 87 111., 385 ; State v. Woodward, 89 Ind., 110, 46 Am. Rep., 
160; De Turk v. Commonwealth, 129 Pa., 151, 18 Atl., 757, 5 L. R. A., 853, 15 
Am. St. Rep., 705 ; American Union Tel. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co., 67 Ala., 
26, 42 Am. Rep., 90; Oakland Paving Co. v. Hilton, 69 Cal., 483, 11 Pac, 3; 
Donahue v. Graham, 61 Cal., 276; McDonald v. Patterson, 54 Cal., 246; Whit- 
man V. National Bank of Oxford, 176 U. S., 562, 20 Sup. Ct., 477, 44 L. Ed., 
590.) Here the amendment itself provides that the precinct inspectors shall 
enforce the provision if registration is required, and that the precinct election 
officers, of whom the inspector is one, shall do so at the time of voting, if 
registration is not required. All that is necessary for its enforcement is to 
refuse to register such disqualified person if registration is required, or refuse 
to deliver him a ballot or to receive a deposit In the ballot box a vote from him 
where registration is not required. Furthermore, as to registration, section 13, 
article 8, chapter 31, session laws, 1907-8, provides that, if any citizen's right 
to registration is challenged, the inspector shall "make such investigation as 
he deems essential, and decide the question of such person's qualifications as an 
elector, and should he be of opinion that such person is not a qualified elector, 
he shall not issue to him a certificate of registration." It will be seen from an 
examination of the constitutional amendment that, if registration is required, 
then the provision in question is to be enforced by the precinct election inspector 
having the registration in charge and at the time of registering the elector. And 
it is only when registration is dispensed with that it is to be enforced by 
precinct election officers at the time of the elector's offering to vote. 



208 ' CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

The legislature of 1907-S passed an act providing for registration in the 
various cities of the first class in this State. This act was approved Myy 29, 

1908 (art 8. c. 31. Sess. Laws 1907-8. p. 352). Subsequently the legislat-til-e of 

1909 passed an act known as senate bill No. 179, approved March 27, 1909, 
ameiiding article 8, chapter 31, Session Laws 3907-S, in regard to registration, 
and making provision for the registration of all voters in all precincts in the 
State. (Sess. Laws 1909. p. 258.) This act did not carry the emergency 
clause, however, and, before the expiration of 90 days after the adjournment of 
the legishiture, the referendum was invoked against it. and, before it was voted 
upon by the people, it was rei^ealed by chapter 112 of the Session Laws of 1910. 
The act of 1909 therefore never became a law ; also, the legislature of this State 
passed, without the emergency clause, an act approved ]\Iarch 2G, 1910, re- 
quiring registration in every precinct of the State, but the referendum was 
invoked with respect to it also. It was voted uix)n at the election on November 
8, 1910, and was defeated. It therefore never became a law; and consequently 
article 8, chapter 31, Session Laws 1907-8, has never been repealed, and is in 
force to this day. Section 2 of said article provides that registration shall 
begin on the first Monday of July preceding each biennial primary election 
to be held in August, and shall continue until 9 o'clock p. m. on the last Satur- 
day night of said month of July. Section 27 of said article provides that dur- 
ing the last week of the month of October i)receding the general election to be 
held in November the inspector of election shall open and keep open the regis- 
tration books for the registration of electors in their respective precincts Avho 
shall have become legal voters of such precinct subsequent to the prim.-iry elec- 
tion in August, or who will be entitled to vote at the general election in Novem- 
ber. This is the only provision for registration of any kind to be had after July. 
Section 1 of said article 8 i)rovides that no elector shall be allowed to vote in 
any election held in such cities unless he has been registered. .Section 15 of 
said article provides that a certificate of registration shall entitle the A'oter 
named therein to vote, provided it is regular in form as compared with the 
carbon copy in the hands of the inspector of the election. And section IS pro- 
vides that certificates of registration shall entitle electors who rightfully hold 
same to vote at all elections held after the date of said registration and before 
the next biennial registration, whether such election be primary of general. But 
section 4 of the act approved March 2S, 1910 (Sess. Laws 1910, p. 242) author- 
izes the challenge of any voter without regard to whether he was registered, and 
provides that, when challenged, he may vote only upon making the affidavit or 
affidavits therein specified. And, construing article 8, chapter 31, Session 
Laws 1907-8, together with section 4 of the act approved March 28, 1910, it 
would seem that after the latter act became effective registration provided for 
in the foi'mer act was only prima facia and not conclusive evidence of the 
possession of those qualifications mentioned in the latter act, and that not- 
withstan.ding such registration a person might be challenged, and, when properly 
challenged, should be refused the right to vote, unless he established the quali- 
fications mentioned in the latter act in the manner therein specified. 

The constitutional amendment having been voted upon and adopted on 
August 2, 1910, after the registration in July, and having prescribed an addi- 
tional qualification and disqualification for voters, and one which previous 
registration did not and could not determine, it is plain that as to all except 
persons who were registered in October as provided in section 27, article 8, 
chapter 31, Session Laws 1907-8, registration was dispensed with in the general 
election in November as determining a person's educational qualification. That 
is to say, registration was still required in cities of the first class, but registra- 
tion made before the adoption of the amendment was no evidence of the pos- 
session of the qualification prescribed by the amendment ; and, as to this quali- 
fication, any voter who was not registered after the adoption of the amend- 
ment — that is, in October — stood in the same situation as though he has not 
registered at all. Those who registered in October, such registration being 
subsequent to the adoption of the amendment, so far as the educational test Is 
concerned, were entitled to vote under and by virtue of their certificates of 
registration. But those who did not register after the adoption of the amend- 
ment, and who were not on January 1, 1866, or at some time prior thereto, 
entitled to vote under some form of government, or who did not at that time 
reside in some foreign nation, or who was not a lineal descendant of such 
person, so far as the educational test was concerned, were not entitled to vote 
under and by virtue of their registration in July, and were no*^ entitled to vote 
at all unless they could read and write any section of the State constitution. 



CAENEY VS. MORGAIST. 209 

The information in this case does not allege whether A. P. Blakemore had 
regis<^ered as a voter, and, if so, whether such registration was in July or in 
Octol \iv. The county court of Tulsa County and this court will take judicial 
notice that Tulsa is a city of the first class (Ft. Scott v. Elliott, 68 Kan. 805, 
74 Pac, (J09; City Council of Montgomery v. Wright, 72 Ala. 411, 47 Am. Rep., 
422 ; Goodwin v. Appleton, 22 Me., 453 ; Woodward v. Chicago & Northwestern 
R. Co., 21 Wis., 809 : Swain v. Comstock, 18 Wis., 463 ; Union Pac. R. Co. v, 
Montgomery. 49 Xeb.. 429. 68 N. W., 619: Hornberger v. State, 47 Neb. 40, 66 
N. W., 23; Stratton v. Oregon City, 35 Or.; 409, 60 Pac, 905; People v. Wong 
Wang, 92 Cal., 277, 28 Pac, 270). and under section 6706 of Snyder's Compiled 
Laws the averment of that fact in the information is not necessary. But, with 
respect to Blakemore's registration, the averment and proof thereof are mate- 
rial and important ; for, if Blakemore did not register in October, then by the 
terms of the amendment in question its provision was to be enforced as to him 
by the election officers at the polls. But if he was registered in October, then 
under the amendment, in the absence of fraud in the registration, we think 
that established his qualification so far as the educational test was concerned; 
and if a fraudulent registration was relied upon as a defense the burden would 
be on the defendant upon a trial under an information of this kind to prove 
the fraudulent registration. As to this matter, the question whether Blakemore 
registered in October was raised in the hearing herein, and in answer to a 
question propounded by the court the county attorney of Tulsa Coimty stated 
that Blakemore registered in July, and not thereafter, and that the information 
could not be truthfully amended so as to allege that he had registered since 
the adoption of the amendment. 

We do not think that section 4 of the act approved Maveh 2S, 1910» prescribes 
any test whatsoever of one's qualification to vote under the constitutional 
amendment. The amendment is a later enactment. The qualification therein 
prescribed is not included in the voter's affidavit set out in section 4 of the act 
mentioned, and the affidavit relates only to matters specified therein. The form 
of the affidavits is st:itutory. and the statute expressly states what alterations 
may be made therein and what additions may be made thereto, and all others 
are thereby excluded. The affidavit shows all matters which may be proved 
thereby. And when such affidavit has been made, and, if controverted, has 
been supported by the affidavit of one qualified elector and freeholder, as to 
the qualifications to which the affidavit relates, the election officers are pre- 
cluded thereby. The vote may not be a legal one, but the election officers have 
no power to reject it because of the want of any qualification which the affi- 
davits in their statutory form show the party to possess. Under the statute 
the making and filing of the prescribed affidavits and not the person's qualifica- 
tion in fact entitles him to vote. This is not true of the constitutional pro- 
vision. Under that provision it is the fact of the possession of the qualification 
therein prescribed and not the making and filing of an affidavit thereof which 
entitles to vote. No person, with certain exceptions, shall be registered as an 
elector or be allowed to vote in any election unless he be able to read and 
write any section of the constitution is the language used; not that such person 
shall not be allowed to vote until he makes affidavit that he can read and write 
any section of the constitution. And we have no doubt that the people in 
initiating and adopting this constitutional amendment did not contemplate or 
intend that the qualifications therein prescribed should be established, and 
that indisputably and conclusively solely by the affidavits prescribed in section 
4 of the act approved March 28, 1910. We think under the constitutional pro- 
vision the election officers, when it appears that the person offering to vote was 
not registered in October, and was not on January 1, 1866. or at some time 
prior thereto, entitled to vote under any form of government, and did not on 
said date reside in some foreign nation, and is not the lineal descendant of 
such a person, in the absence of further legislation may lawfully apply to such 
person any reasonable test as to his ability to read and write a section of the 
constitution. If the election officers know that such person possesses the 
requisite qualifications they need not apply any test. If they are satisfied 
from the person's affidavit that he can read and write any section of the con- 
stitution they may act upon that and permit him to vote. If they are not satis- 
fied therefrom they may lawfully apply the ultimate test of requiring such 
person in their presence to read and write a section of the constitution of not 
unreasonable length. Beyond this they can not go. And if they apply this 
test it is their duty in good faith to give the person an opportunity of fulfilling 
it, and when he has reasonably fulfilled the requirement to permit him to vote. 

4252—13 14 



210 CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 

Such a test itself is not unreasonable. It affords the highest, best, and ultimate 
proof of the possession or want of the qualification imposed. The elector can 
not prescribe his own method of proving his possession of this qualification 
so as to preclude the election officers from denying, disputing, or rejecting his 
proffered affidavit and applying to him the ultimate test contemplated by the 
amendment. If he could it would be easy to practically nullify the amendment. 

Taking the facts charged in this information as true, it appears that A. P. 
Blakemore was not himself entitled to vote under any form of government on 
January 1, 1866, and did not at that time reside In some foreign nation, and 
was not a lineal descendant of such a person. Therefore, unless he could read 
and write any section of the constitution, he was not entitled to vote at the 
election in question. And, since he did not register in October, it was no offense 
for the election inspector to require that he first demonstrate his ability to 
read and write a section of the constitution before permitting him to vote. 
If, after demanding the test, the inspector had refused him reasonable oppor- 
tunity to fulfill it. or after fulfilling it the inspector bad still denied him the 
right to vote, a different question would be presented ; but here the oft'ense is 
aHeged to consist in the fact that the petitioner refused to accept the tendered 
affidavit as conclusively establishing Blakemore's educational qualification, 3nd 
refused to allow him to vote only until he should read and write in petitioner's 
presence a section of the constitution. And, as Blakemore was not registered in 
October, this was no offense. On the other hand, if he had registered in Octo- 
ber, and duly presented his certificate of registration to the election officials 
when he applied to vote, in the absence of fraud in his registration, of which 
there is no legal presumption, he would have been entitled to vote; and if, 
under those circumstances, the petitioner had insisted upon applying to him 
the test alleged, and refused to permit him to vote until he should fulfill that 
test, intending under color and pretense of such test to defraud Blakemore of 
his right to vote, a right which, so far as the educational test was concerned had 
already been determined at the time and by the person designated by the 
amendment to determine it. such act would have constituted an offense. The in- 
formation fails to allege those facts. And, since the county attorney states 
that he can not truthfully allege them, their omission is not a mere " defect in 
the charge," for which the court, by section 6208, Snyder's Compiled Laws, is 
forbidden to discharge on habeas corpus. As these necessary averments are 
wanting and can not be supplied, the petitioner is entitled to be discharged, 
and it is so ordered. 

FuRMAN, P. J., and Doyle, J., concur. 

S^ATE OF Oklahoma, Oklahoma County, ss: 

I, Mary S. Stotler^ notary public, in and for Oklahoma County, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing pages, numbered at 
the bottom respectively 1 to 12, inclusi^•e, is a full, complete, and correct copy 
of Exhibit E. introduced in evidence by the contestee in the taking of deposi- 
tions or evidence before me in the case now pending before the House of 
Representatives of the Sixty-third Congress of the United States of America, 
wherein John J. Carney is contestant, and Dick T. Morgan is contestee. 

[seal.] Mary S. Stotler, 

Notary Piihlic, Oklahoma County. Okla. 

My commission expires September 1, 1914. 

certificate. 

I, Mary S. Stotler. notary public within and for the county of Oklahoma, 
State of Oklahoma, do hereby certify that W. C. Broady. Ben W. Riley, and 
Porter H. Morgan, the witnesses whose names are severally subscribed to the 
foregoing depositions and evidence, were by me first duly sworn to testify to 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in the said above-entitled 
cause; that the depositions and evidence and testimony given by them and 
respectfully subscribed by them were reduced to writing by me, a disinterested 
person, in my presence, and subscribed by the respective witnesses in my 
presence; that the said evidence and testimony and depositions were taken on 
the 19th day of March, 1913, between the hours of 8 o'clock a. m. and 6 o'clock 
p. m. of said day at the office of Morgan & Deupree, 421, 422, and 423 American 
National Bank Building, in the city of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, State 
of Oklahoma, as specified in the notice to take said evidence and depositions 



% 

CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 211 

which is hereto attached; that I reduced to writing the testimony of the said 
witnesses, together with the questions propounded to them by Porter H. Morgan 
and Harlan T. Deupree, attorneys for the contestee, and the questions pro- 
pounded by the Hon. Tyson Dortch, one of the attorneys for the contestant he 
being associated in the practice of law with Giddings & Giddings, attorneys of 
record for said contestant in said cause, together with the objections offered 
by the said attorneys for the respective parties, and said questions and testi- 
mony and objections were reduced to writing in the presence of the said attor- 
neys and were duly attested by the said witnesses, respectively, in the presence 
of said attorneys and agents ; that I am not related to either of the parties in 
said cause and am not attorney for either of them, and am not interested in the 
result of said action, financially or otherwise. 

[SEAL.] Mary S. Stotleb, 

Notary PuUic, Oklahoma County, Okla. 

My commission expires September 1, 1914. 



ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY FOR CONTESTANT. 

Now, on this 26th day of February, 1913, the above matter coming on for 
hearing before L. Babcock, notary public, in and for Canadian County, Okla.. 
the contestant, John J. Carney, appearing by his attorney, M. B. Cope, and the- 
contestee, Dick T. Morgan, appearing by F. E. Gillette, attorney, and Israel 
Futoransky being first duly sworn to take the testimony and the deposition at 
this hearing. Sherman Neff being first duly sworn on oath according to law, 
being called as a witness, testified as follows : 

Testimony of SHERMAN NEFF. 
Questions by Mr. Cope : 

Q. State your name. 

(The contestee, Dick T. Morgan, objects to any testimony by this witness 
or any witness pursuant to the notice served upon which such a hearing is 
predicated for the reason and upon the grounds: First, that no sufficient notice 
of this hearing has been served upon said contestee ; second, that the notice under 
the law and the rules of practice in such case made and provided of a hearing 
at this time is too late, the same having been served more thaji^ 40 days after 
the response of the contestee to the contestant's petition was filed.) 

A. Sherman Neff. 

Q. State your place of residence. — ^A. 606 North Choctaw. 

Q. State the city and county and State that you. live in. — A. State of Olda- 
homa, Canadian County, city of El Reno. 

Q. Were you a resident of El Reno, in Canadian County, on tlie 5th day of 
November, 1912? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What position, if any, did you occupy on the 5th day of November, 1912. 
with a relation to the election that was held on that date? — A. I was clerk of 
the election board of precinct A, second ward. 

Q. As such officer were you in attendance upon the board in that precinct 
on election day? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. As such officer did you have general information as to what the laws of 
Oklahoma were at that time relative to whom were qualified electors and who 
were not? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you to state if in that precinct any negroes were allowed to 
cast their ballots on election day. — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. As nearly as you can remember, about how many negroes voted in that 
precinct on election day? 

Mr. Gillette. We object to the foregoing question and any answer thereto 
for the reason and upon the ground that there is no specification in the con- 
testant's petition which authorizes general proof of the fact alone that negroes 
voted. The specification of contest covering only the grounds of illegal votes 
in Canadian County under the laws of this State. 

A. Well, I think about 40; but now I wouldn't say positive as to that. 

Q. I will ask you, Mr. NefC, if on that date, before negroes were permitted 
to vote, if they were tested as to tlieir ability to read and write sections of the 
constitution, as provided by the laws of Oklahoma? 

Mr. Gillette. That's objected to as incompetent. 

A. I have given all the negro voters, with a very few exceptions, that test, 
but not on this date; but the negroes who can't make it, as a rule, are shy of 
coming to the polls. We turned, I think, two down that day that we didn't 
think could vote intelligently. That's the best of my recollection. 

Q. Then, as I understand you, Mr. Neff, the laws of Oklahoma, as they 
existed at that time, applicable to negro voters, was not enforced in that pre- 
cinct at the general election of 1912? — A. Well, we think that we enforced 
the law. 

Q. W611, before permitting those negroes to vote, did you require each and 
every one of them to read and write some section of the Oklahoma constitu- 
tion? — A. Not on that date, we didn't. 
212 



\ 

CARNEY VS. MOEGAIST. • 213 

:Mr. Gillette. The consideration of the foregoing question and answer is 
•objected to for the reason that it is irrelevant and immaterial. 

Q. Please state what reason, if any, the election officers in that precinct had 
for not enforcing the laws of Oklahoma relative to negro voters. 

Mr. Gillette. The question Is objected to because it'^assumes a fact to exist 
which has not been shown to exist, in that it assumes that the election board 
did not discharge its duty. 

A. Why, we read of some fellows who had enforced that section of that clause 
and at that time were in jail, and we had some Instructions to keep out of jail, 
which we carefully carried out. 

Q. Then, it was because of the information that you had received as to what 
the consequences might be in case this particular law was enforced caused you 
to refrain from enforcing what is known as the "grandfather law"?^A. Well, 
partly ; and then my knowledge of these voters who came there to vote on that 
day— as I am pretty well acquainted with all of them— and I had put most of 
them through this test once. 

Q. You hadn't put them through this test at this particular election, had you"' 

Mr. Gillette. Objected to uix)n the ground that such test is not required 
under the law. 

A. No. 

Mr. Cope. That's all. 

Cross-examination bj' Mr. Gillette : 

Q. Do you know of any negro having voted at that election who was not 
qualified under the law to vote at that time? 

Mr. Cope. We object to the question as incompetent and immaterial, for 
the reason that the witness has already stated that the election test that ap- 
plied to negro voters by the laws of Oklahoma was not enforced at this par- 
ticular election. 

A. To the best of my knowledge there was not. 

Q. To what extent were you informed as to the qualifications of the negroes 
that were allowed to vote? State fully, 

Mr. Cope. We object to the question for the reason that the witness has 
stated that the election test as applied to negro voters was not enforced in that 
precint at the general election of 1912. 

Mr. Gillette. Counsel for contest ee responding to the grounds of the objec- 
tion urges the incompetency of the objection for the reason that the objection 
itself IS a legal argument upon facts concluded but not shown. 

A. Well, I personally did not think that it was necessary to put this test 
every time that these fellows wanted to vote, as I was acquainted with them 
and had given it to them once prior to that time — to most of them. 

Q. Do you know how a negro voted that day for Congressman? 

Mr. Cope. Objected to as incompetent. 

A. No, sir; I don't. 

Mr. Gillette. That's all. 

Mr. Cope. That's all. 

Sherman W. Neff. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of Februaiy, 1913. 

[seal.] I/UCius Babcock, 

,, . . Notary Public. 

My commission expires July 17, 1913. 

H. D. FORTNER, being duly sworn and called as a witness, testifies as 
follows : 

Questions by Mr. Cope : 

Q. State your name. 

Mr. Gillette. I object to the testimony of this witness upon the ground and 
for the reasons that no sufficient notice of contest has been given within the 
time required by the law and the rules of practice to give jurisdiction over such 
testimony at this time. 

A. H. D. Fortner. 

Q. T\'here do you live. Mr. Fortner?— A. 110 West Clark Street, El Reno. 

Q. State the city and county and State.— A. City of El Reno, Canadian 
County. State of Oklahoma. 

Q. Did you live in El Reno on the 5th day of November, 1912?— A. Yes, sir. 



214 CARNEY VS. MOEGAN". 

Q. State what official position, if any, you held on the election board in 
precinct A of the second ward of the city of El Reno at the general election of 
1912? — A. I was inspector. 

Q. As such officer did you have a general knowledge of the laws of Oklahoma 
as they existed at that time? — ^A. No; because I was no lawyer. 

Q. As inspector at that election were you supplied with instructions which 
you received from the county election board? — ^A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I will ask you to state, Mr. Fortner, as nearly as you can remember, about 
how many niggers voted in that precinct at the general election of 1912. — ^A. 
Well, I'll tell you ; my memory wouldn't be very authentic from the simple fact, 
because I never did know the exact number. I can tell just about the number 
I thought. 

Q. You may state about what your judgment would be? — A. In my judgment, 
between 50 and 60. 

Q. I will ask you to state, Mr. Fortner, if, at that election, the test required 
of negro voters, under the laws of Oklahoma, were enforced by the election 
officers in that precinct? — ^A. No, sir; they were not. 

Q. I will ask you to state, Mr. Fortner, why the test required by the laws 
of Oklahoma on negro voters was not enforced in that precinct at that elec- 
tion? — A. The reason I didn't, I kept reading in the papers of the different 
squabbles the other inspectors had gotten into and I wasn't going to take any 
chances where a national question was involved. 

Q. Then, so far as you are concerned, it was lai-gely through fear of what 
the consequences might be to you that caused you to refrain from enforcing 
the test required by the laws of Oklahoma upon negro voters, was it — A. Yes, 
sir. 

Q. Do you recall at this time whether or not, prior to the general election of 
1912, you received from any Federal official any card or instructions or advice 
against the enforcement of the test required of negro voters by the laws of 
Oklahoma ? — A. No, sir ; I didn't receive any. 

Q. As I understand it, Mr. Fortner, the negroes that voted in precinct A of 
the second ward of the city of El Reno, at the general election of 1912, did so 
without submitting to the test required of negro voters by the laws of the State 
of Oklahoma? — A. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cope. That's all. 

Questions by Mr. Gillette: 

Q. That was the general election? — A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You may state whether or not any negro vote was challenged at the time 
he offered to vote at that election? 

Mr. Cope. We object to the question for the reason that it is incompetent and 
immaterial. 

A, No, sir. 

Q. Do you know of any negro having voted at that election who was not 
qualified to vote under the laws of this State? 

Mr. Cope. We object to the question as incompetent and immaterial, the wit- 
ness having testified that the test required of negro voters under the laws of 
Oklahoma, was not enforced in that precinct at that election. 

A. No ; not being personally acquainted with them. I am not qualified to 
state whether they were qualified to vote or not. 

Q. As inspector of elections, were you in any way hampered or hindered 
in requiring any test to be applied to any legal voter? — ^A. Only as I had read 
in the papers the circumstances in Kingfisher County and in other counties. 
It was through my own personal protection, as I recall it, that I didn't. 

Q. You qualified as an inspector, by taking the oath required of such officer, 
did you not, before you entered upon the discharge of such duty? 

Mr. Cope. Object to the question as incompetent. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Did any person or persons there that day in any way interfere with your 
discharging your duty according to the law and your oath? — A. No, sir. 

Q. Do you know how any negroes voted that day for Congressman? — ^A. No, 
sir; I do not. 

Q. In testifying here to-day, do you do so with the understanding that the 
laws of Oklahoma required any test to be applied to any negro whose right to 
vote is not challenged? 

Mr. Cope. We object to the question as being incompetent and immaterial and 
calling for a conclusion of the witness. 



CARNEY VS. MORGAN. 215 

A. Yes. 

Q. Was that your uuderstanding on election day? — A. Yes. sir. 

Q. Was that your uuderstanding when you qualified as an election official by 
taking the oath you did? 

Mr. Cope. Object to the question as incompetent and immaterial. 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Now. what test was required as you understand it? 

Mr. Cope. We object to the question as incompetent, irrelevant, and im- 
material. 

A. To be able to read and write a clause of the constitution of the State of 
Oklahoma. 

Q. Do you know that there was a negro voted at that election who could not 
do this? 

Mr. Cope. We object to the question as incompetent and immaterial. 

A. No. sir. 

Q. That's all. 

Redirect examination by Mr. Cope : 
Q. Do you know of your own personal knowledge whether any of the negroes 
that voted in that precinct that day could read and write any section of the 
constitution of Oklahoma?— A. No. sir. 
Mr. Cope. That's all. 

H. D. Fortneb. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 26th day of February, 1913. 
[seal.] Lucius Babcock. Notary PuWic. 

My commission expires July 17. 1913. 

Comes now the contestant and introduces in evidence the notice to take 
depositions in this case. 

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITIONS. 

The said Dick T. Morgan, and Morgan & Deupree, his attorneys of record, 
will take notice that on Wednesday. February 26, 1913. the said John J. Carney, 
contestant above named, will take the depositions of sundry witnesses, to be 
used in evidence in the trial of the above cause, at the office of Lucius Babcock, 
in the city of El Reno, Okla.. before said Lucius Babcock, a notary public, in and 
for Canadian County. Okla. That the name of the witness whose deposition 
so will be taken is D. G. Fortner, El Reno. Okla., and such other witnesses as 
the respective parties hereto may agree to take at said time and place. The 
said testimony to be taken between the hours of 8 o'clock a. m. and 6 o'clock 
p. m. of said day, and that the taking of the same will be adjourned and con- 
tinued from day to day at the same time and place, and between the same 
hours, until they are completed. 

John J. Carney, Contestant, 

By GiDDINGS t& GiDDINGS, 

His Attorneys. 

Service of the above notice is hereby acknowledged this 24th day of Feb- 
ruary, 1913. 

CEETIFICATE OF NOTARY. 

State of Oklahoma, Canadian County, ss: 

I, Lucius Babcock, notary public, in and for the county of Canadian, State of 
Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above-named, Sherman W. NefC and 
H. D. Fortner, the witnesses' names severally subscribed to the foregoing 
deposition, were by me first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, in the case aforesaid, and that the depositions by 
them respectively subscribed were reduced to writing and subscribed by the 
respective witnesses in my presence, and the same were taken on the 26th 
day of February, A. D. 1913, between the hours of 8 o'clock a. m. and 6 o'clock 
p. m., of said day, and at the office of Lucius Babcock, in the city of El Reno, 
in the county of Canadian and State of Oklahoma, as specified in the notice 
thereto attached, and that I am not attorney for either of said parties or other- 
wise interested in the event of said action. 

[seal.] Lucius Babcock. 

Notary PuWic in and for said County and State. 

My commission expires July 17, 1913. 



216 CARNEY VS. MOEGAN. 

Before Hon. South Trimble, Clerk of the House of Representatives of the United 
States of America, Washington, D. C. 

In the matter of the contest of J. J. Carney, contestant, v. Dick T. Morgan, 
contestee, for a seat in the Sixty-third Congress, from the Second District, 
State of Oklahoma, and in the matter of the printing of testimony in said 
case. 

Comes now Dick T. Morgan, in his own proper person, and alleges : 

First, that there was certain pretended evidence taken in behalf of the con- 
testant herein, J. J. Carney, which was not signed or properly sworn to by 
the witness or witnesses giving said testimony; and the said Dick T. Morgan 
objects to the printing of any part or portion of any said pretended testimony 
that is not duly signed by the witness or witnesses and properly attested 
under the hand and seal of an officer duly authorized and empowered to take 
evidence under such cases under the law. 

Second, Contestee Morgan alleges that practically all the testimony taken 
at Oklahoma City, Okla., was taken by shorthand writer and written out in 
long hand many months thereafter, and if signed by any of the witnesses there- 
after, was not signed until months succeeding the time which said testimony 
was taken, all of which is contrary to the laws and the rules conti'olling the 
taking of depositions in the State of Oklahoma, and to the laws of Congress 
rel-ating to the taking of such testimony, and Contestee Morgan, therefore, 
objects to the printing of any part or portion of said evidence that was taken 
by shorthand and not signed by the witnesses at the time and on the date and 
place where the evidence was taken, and this contestee alleges that all the 
evidence taken by the officer at Oklahoma City. Okla.. in this case was taken 
by shorthand as aforesaid, except seven pages immediately following page 39 
of said evidence. 

Third. Contestee Morgan further objects to the printing of any alleged testi- 
mony relating to a certain alleged letter and warning circular alleged to have 
been sent through the United States mails to election officers for the reason that 
the evidence does not show in any way that the Contestee Morgan, or the 
Republican congressional committee, or the campaign committee, or nnyone in 
any way connected with said committee, or anyone in behalf of said Contestee 
Morgan, or with his knowledge had anything to do whatever with the sending 
of any such alleged letter or circular. 

Fourth, this contestee asks that all the evidence taken in his behalf be 
printed, except the cross-examination of the witnesses who testified in behalf 
of the Contestee Morgan, and he asks that the said cross-examination be ex- 
cluded on the ground that said cross-examination was improper. 

Fifth, the Contestee Morgan objects to the opening of any alleged testimony 
that has not been delivered to the clerk by mail or express and hns not come 
to the clerk addressed to the Clerk of the House of Representatives of the 
United States. Washington, D. C or that has not been properly indorsed upon 
the outside envelo]ie with the name of the case in which it is taken, together 
with the name of the party in whose behalf it was taken, with projier subscrip- 
tion and indorsement thereon, and Contestee Morgan specifically objects to the 
printing of any testimony and the opening or printing of a package of alleged 
testimonv that" is now in the hands of the clerk, addressed to E. J. Giddings. care 
New Wiilard Hotel, Washington, D. C. and has indorsed thereon. " From Gid- 
dings & Giddings." or words to that effect; and further specifically objects to 
the printing of alleged testimony of witnesses that appears to have come into 
the hands of the clerk without being sealed or indorsed; 

Respectfullv submitted. 

Dick T. Morgan. 

The undersigned, attorney for J. J. Carne.v. acknowledges delivery to him a 
true and correct copy of the foregoing motion on this the 30th day of June, 1913. 



INDEX. 



Page. 

A-otice of contest-- ^-- 3-7 

Acceptance of service-, : — ^-.-. — ^ 8 

Exhibit A. — Amendment to tlie constitution of the State of Oklahoma, 

section 4a of article 3 . — ^^ 

Exhibit B. — Letter from Homer N. Boardman, United States attor- 
ney, to Fred A. Wagoner, deputy county attorney, Chandler, Okla_- 8-9 

Exhibit C. — Campaign circular— 9 

Exhibit D. — Amended returu^-^ 9-10 

Answer to notice of contest 11-26 

Cross petition 20-21 

Exhibit A. — Letter from the Oklahoma election board to Hon. Ben. 

W. Riley, secretary of state 22 

Acknowledgment of service .- 26 

Affidavit of service -_ 26 

Tabulated statements of votes in Blaine and Oklahoma Counties-- 23, 24-25 

Appearances for contestant : 

Cope, M. B 212 

Emery, A. L 107 

Giddings & GiddingS— — 27, 173 

Appearances for contestee: 

Gillette. F. E 212 

Michener, Louis T 168 

Morgan, Porter H 27 

Morgan & Deupree 107,173 

Notices to take depositions 27, 106. 168, 173, 215 

Objections by contestee of taking any testimony by .John J. Carney, con- 
testant --- 28-30 

Officers before whom depositions were taken : 

Babcock. Lucius 213, 215 

Graalman, Theodore 109. 

111. 114. 116. 117. 118. 120, 122, 123, 125. 127, 129, 

130. 133, 134, 137, 1.39. 142, 145, 150, 151, 152, 154 

Hill, Marv S- 28, 46, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56. 58, 59, 62, 64, 66, 69, 74, 78, 80, 82, 105 

Stotler, Mary S - 175, 177. 180, 210 

White, E. L 171, 172 

Testimony for contes'ant 27-87 

Additional testimony 212-215 

Testimony for contestee 106-154, 168-180 

Witnesses for contestant: 

Baker, Morris S 55-56 

Ballard, Henry F 56 

Barker, W. W 74-78 

Burnsworth, C. E 80-82 

Clark, T. J 36^0 

Davis. W. J - 28.30-36 

Fortner. H. D 213-215 

Jack, C. B 59 

Kenvon, Frank L 53-55 

Lucas, J. E 64-66 

Moore, B. B 46-51, 6&-69 

Morris, F. H 78-80 

Needham, Ed 53 

217 



218 INDEX. 

Witnesses for contestant — Continued. Page. 

Neff, Sherman 212-213 

Norman, H. E 52 

Ray, T. H 51-52 

Redding, Frank 57-58 

Ringold, E. A 59-62,70-74,82-87 

Seiler, Wm. H 69 

Sorrels, J. W 62-64 

Vorel, Louis 40-46 

Wagner, E. A 58 

Witnesses for contestee: 

Albin, C. E 142 

Reals, W. L 113-114 

Broady, W. C 147-150,173-175 

Butler, George H 133-134 

Carter. F. W 130 

Dimmett, J. C 125-127 

Dunn, J. A 136-137 

Dykes, W. E 122 

Ennen, A. L 141-142 

Foose, Seymour 152-153 

Galloway, Barritt 171-172 

Howell, L. R 109-111 

Knott, F. A 117-118 

Laughlin, Harvey 119-120 

Lemon, John B 130 

Lookabaugh 151-152 

McGee, John 129 

Morgan, Dick T 168-171 

Morgan, Porter H 177-180 

Mosley, T. W 150-151 

Riley, Ben W 175-177 

Rycroft, R. G 116-117 

Slayton, A. L 122-123 

Spreitzer, Henry 132-133 

Taylor. E. R 107-109 

Temple, R. I 142-145 

Thompson. W. E 139 

Wallen, F. A 125 

EXHIBITS. 

Exhibit A. — Campaign circular 87 

Exhibit B. — Letter from Homer N. Boardman, United States attorney, to 

Fred A. Wagoner, deputy county attorney. Chandler, Okla 87-88 

Exhib 
JExhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 
Exhib 



t C— J. M. H., February 6, 1913- 
t D.— J. M. H., February 6, 1913- 

t E.— Registration list of Oklahoma City, Okla 88 

ts F to J.— Official ballots 88-97 

ts K 1 to K 3.— Affidavits of challenged voters 97-100 

t K 4. — Deposition of A. Thomas 100 

t K 5.— Deposition of U. I. Davis 100 

t K 6.— Deposition of A. L. Moore 100-101 

t K 7. — Deposition of Louis Yorel 101 

t K 8. — Deposition of C. E. Burnworth 101 

t K 9.— Deposition of F. H. Morris 102 

ts K 10 and K 11.— Depositions of G. W. Swails 102-103 

t K 12.— Deposition of F. H. Morris 103 

t K 13.— Deposition of C. E. Burnsworth 103-104 

t K 14. — Deposition of Louis Vorel 104-105 

Contestee's Exhibit A. — Official returns of the general election held Tues- 
day, Nov. 5, 1912 181-183 

Contestee's Exhibit B. — ^Abstract of the vote cast for Blaine County, by 
precincts, at general election held Tuesday, Nov. 5, 1912 184-186 

Contestee's Exhibit D. — Decision Supreme Court of Oklahoma in Atwater 
■i\ Hassett et al .. 186-200 



INDEX. 219 

Page. 

Contestee's Exhibit E. — Decision of Criminal Court of Appeals of Okla- 
homa in Ex Parte Show 200-210 

Contestee's Exhibit 1. — Certificate of vote 120-122 

Contestee's Exhibit 2. — Certificate of vote 145-147 

Contestee's Exhibit 3. — Certificate of vote 134-136 

Contestee's Exhibit 4. — Certificate of vote : 114-116 

Contestee's Exhibit 5. — Certificate of vote 118-119 

Contestee's Exhibit 6. — Certificate of vote 123-125 

Contestee's Exhibit 7. — Certificate of vote 131-132 

Contestee's Exhibit 8. — Certificate of vote 127-129 

Contestee's Exhibit 9. — Certificate of vote 140-141 

Contestee's Exhibit 10. — Certificate of vote 111-112 

Contestee's Exhibit 11.— Certificate of vote 137-139 

Contestee's Exhibit 14. — Certificate of vote 154 

o 



'/ 



^ 



